ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

HEALTH

The Secretary of State was asked—

Patient Administration Systems

John Pugh: What progress has been made on the deployment of patient administration systems in hospitals.

Ben Bradshaw: There have been 141 patient administration systems deployments in total, including 43 in acute hospitals, 23 in mental health trusts and 75 in primary care trusts.

John Pugh: I thank the Minister for that ingenious reply, but the  Financial Times last week said of the new systems that in the north, planned implementation has not happened and in the south, the contractor has been fired, and that hospital bosses generally believe that the project is near to death. Which bit of "not working" does the Minister not understand? Is it not time for a review?

Ben Bradshaw: No; the hon. Gentleman is getting confused between full implementation and connection with the national spine in acute trusts, and the implementation of patient administration systems in general, in many cases, which has been very successful. We acknowledge that there are problems; there are always problems with computer systems on such a massive scale—the biggest IT programme in the world. There have been problems with its introduction in acute trusts, which have between 40 and 60 systems of their own, but we are working very hard, including with his local acute trust, with the provider and with Connecting for Health, to try to resolve the problems as soon as possible.

Kevin Barron: How necessary does my hon. Friend believe it to be, particularly in acute trusts, for the patient administration systems to be capable of passing on electronically patient discharge notes, so that we do not wait days and days when patients are back in the community, but wait seconds?

Ben Bradshaw: My right hon. Friend makes a very important point in highlighting one of the real benefits of a computerised health care system, not only regarding discharge notes, but so that clinicians can exchange in real-time information about patients. Any hon. Member who has visited any systems that are already up and running successfully will have heard not just from patients but from doctors and other health professionals about the benefits that they bring to patient care.

Richard Bacon: Can the Minister confirm that one of the risks that the Royal Free hospital has identified is that some of its patients may be exposed to a double dose in the radiology department because of flaws in the Cerner Millennium system?

Ben Bradshaw: That is one of the reasons why the implementation at the Royal Free hospital has been stopped for the time being. Active discussions have been going on between the strategic health authority in London, Connecting for Health and the Royal Free to ensure that exactly what the hon. Gentleman fears could happen, could not do so. That is why the system has not been carried forward at this time.

Mark Hunter: The patient administration system is not the only one going wrong in the health service at the moment. Has the Minister had any opportunity to review the progress being made with choose and book? Does he understand the very significant difficulties that it causes for the very many people who do not find the system at all customer friendly?

Ben Bradshaw: On the contrary, in many parts of the country, choose and book is operating extremely successfully. It is one of the great success stories of the national programme for IT. However, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that in some primary care trust areas, performance is quite unacceptable. We are working very closely with those primary care trust laggards who are not performing very well on choose and book to ensure that they come up to the performance standards of others.

Stephen O'Brien: With £12 billion at risk, choose and book, and electronic prescriptions, still 50 per cent. and 75 per cent. behind the Government's target for completion last year, and fewer than 0.5 per cent. of electronic records uploaded against their target of 100 per cent. by next month, will the Minister say how many lives have been lost, delays suffered and mistakes made—affecting patients and their loved ones—that would have been avoided but for his Government's ongoing failure to design and implement a health care IT system on time and that works?

Ben Bradshaw: The hon. Gentleman knows quite well that the £14 billion is not at risk, because he knows that one very important part of the contract—

Stephen O'Brien: It is £12 billion.

Ben Bradshaw: Or the £12 billion. The hon. Gentleman knows that one very important part of the contract is that the costs of any delay are incurred by the supplier not by the taxpayer. That is a result of the excellent contract that the Government drew up. He knows also that the independent National Audit Office confirmed in its report earlier this year that progress was being made in all parts of the programme, and that that was bringing real benefits in terms of in-patient care, saving lives and saving taxpayers' money.

Andrew MacKinlay: Will the Minister investigate the London teaching hospitals, some of which are abusing choose and book, and even ignoring it in some cases? The Healthcare Commission is aware of the issue. It is a scandal; it is the fiddling of figures, and it is now time that the Minister, or the Secretary of State for Health himself, undertook a search and scratched the surface on the matter. London teaching hospitals are abusing the system.

Ben Bradshaw: I shall certainly look into the points that my hon. Friend raises, but he is right to raise the concerns that were expressed on the publication a couple of weeks ago of the Healthcare Commission's annual health check, which highlighted, as I said in response to a question from the Liberal Democrat Benches, the very big variability in the performance of PCTs and trusts on the use of choose and book. That is completely unacceptable, and I shall look into the matters that my hon. Friend raises.

Mental Health Act 1983 (Sectioning)

Tim Loughton: How many people have been sectioned under the Mental Health Act 1983 in the past 12 months.

Phil Hope: In England in 2007-08, the most recent year for which information is available, there were 28,100 compulsory admissions to hospital under the 1983 Act and about a further 19,500 detentions subsequent to informal admission.

Tim Loughton: In November 2006, the Minister's predecessor gave an undertaking that within two years no child under 16 would be detained in adult psychiatric wards, and undertakings to that effect were given during discussion of the Mental Health Bill last year. Will the Minister guarantee that that pledge has now been fulfilled, two years on, and that improvements have been made so that children in appropriate child psychiatric wards can access education so that they do not fall behind with their studies during their illness?

Phil Hope: In fact, two commitments were made at that time. The first was that within two years no one under 16 would be treated in an adult psychiatric ward and the second was that nobody under 18 would be in an age-inappropriate setting. The latest available figures, for April to June this year, show that there were only 16 bed days for under-16s on adult psychiatric wards—the lowest level since such data collection started in 2005. I shall certainly take away the hon. Gentleman's comments about the education of young people in those settings.

Andrew Love: Under the Government's 10-year plan, mental health is meant to be a priority, along with cancer services and heart services. However, there is still growing evidence locally that money is being channelled into hospitals to meet the requirements of their plans, rather than into mental health services. What reassurance can my hon. Friend give me that that is being taken into account and that priority is being given to mental health services, as was stated in the 10-year plan?

Phil Hope: I am pleased to be able to tell my hon. Friend that no less a body than the World Health Organisation praised the Government's record on investing in mental health. We have one of the highest spends on mental health in Europe, and our spending on adult mental health services has increased by £1.7 billion in the past six years—a 44 per cent. real-terms increase for mental health services.
	My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are now looking to the future and talking to key stakeholders about our New Horizons project for mental health services. We expect to publish proposals for that future direction for mental health services next spring.

Graham Stuart: Less money is spent on the mental health needs of East Riding of Yorkshire residents than on those of the residents of any other area in the country. Their primary care trust receives hundreds of pounds less per head for general health needs than do the constituents of the Secretary of State for Health, who live not very far away. The primary care trust in East Riding directs just 7 per cent. of its expenditure to mental health. That is about half the national average, so there is a double whammy for my constituents. What message can the Minister send to the managers of the PCT to ensure that my constituents get a decent and proper mental health service?

Phil Hope: The obvious response is to advise the hon. Gentleman's constituents to support Labour at a future general election. Since 1997, spending on the health service has increased up to £100 billion. We are very proud of that record, and I might say to him that it is a serious issue—

Graham Stuart: You should be ashamed of yourself.

Phil Hope: The hon. Gentleman talks about being ashamed, but he should be ashamed of the fact that his party consistently voted in every Budget against our extra spending on the national health service.

David Drew: My hon. Friend will be aware that people being sectioned are among the most vulnerable. I have always supported independent advocacy in such situations. I know that there has been an improvement, but I would like someone who is sectioned, as of right, to have access to an independent advocate. Does the Minister also aspire to that?

Phil Hope: I am grateful for that thoughtful question. As my hon. Friend may know, from April 2009 we will give such people for the first time a statutory right to an independent mental health advocate. That builds on the excellent practice in some parts of the country of engaging non-statutory mental health advocates. In a few months' time, from 1 April, people who are sectioned will have a statutory right to such an advocate to help them through the system.

Anne Milton: I warmly welcome the Minister to his new position, although we have already met across the Floor in Committee.
	Despite the drop in total psychiatric admissions, the number of involuntary admissions since 1996 has increased by 20 per cent.—it is up by a fifth. Does the Minister share my concern that with bed occupancy in psychiatric hospitals now at 86 per cent., and with a drop in bed numbers of 17 per cent. since 2001, decisions on treatment for people with psychiatric illness are being made not with the clinical needs of the patient in mind, but because of a lack of, and declining, in-patient facilities?

Phil Hope: I thank the hon. Lady for welcoming me to the Dispatch Box, but she is completely wrong: all decisions are made on the basis of clinical need. She is also wrong about the number of detentions, which has remained roughly stable since 1998, at some 47,900 in 1998-99 and some 47,600 in the last financial year. We now have 64 per cent. more consultant psychiatrists, 71 per cent. more clinical psychologists and 21 per cent. more mental health nurses than in 1997. That suggests that our investment in mental health is a record that we can be proud of. Nevertheless, we will take measures to publish a new strategy for mental health services next year.

Health Inequalities

John Robertson: What research his Department has undertaken into the reasons for health inequalities; and if he will make a statement.

Alan Johnson: The Government's programme for addressing health inequalities is informed by a wide evidence base on the complex underlying factors, as highlighted in the Acheson Report and, more recently, the World Health Organisation report "Closing the Gap in a Generation", which was published in August and which the Government welcome and support.

John Robertson: I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. I know that he agrees that the postcode lottery in health has to be stopped and we have to move forward. For example, in Scotland we have twice the waiting lists that people have in England. Can he assure me that such inequalities, and the problems that we have in the regions in general, can be looked into to ensure that best practice is taken forward and that the money that is supplied will go to where the needs are greatest?

Alan Johnson: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to this crucial issue, which we regard as a huge priority. The Department of Health alone cannot tackle these issues of health inequality: we need concerted action across government involving education, planning, local government and housing. We are therefore working with colleagues in government. I suggest that the introduction of 113 new GP practices in under-doctored areas—the 25 per cent. with the least provision of GP services—goes a huge way towards making our contribution to tackling this crucial problem.

John Redwood: What would be the impact on health inequalities of permitting people to buy their own medicines where they were not available while keeping their NHS treatment?

Alan Johnson: I shall make a statement on precisely that point later on. The right hon. Gentleman reminds me—he is interested in health inequalities—that between the '70s and the '90s the situation on health inequalities got worse. For men of working age, comparison of the mortality rate of the unskilled with that of professionals shows that it was twice as high in the 1970s, and it ended up three times as high in the 1990s. Whatever we do, we will do much more to tackle health inequalities than the Government of whom he was a member.

Derek Twigg: Halton has the worst rate of early deaths from cancer in England, and life expectancy is three years less than the national average. A lot of work is being done locally to improve things, but I am particularly concerned about teenage health. The chief medical officer has said that poor health in teenagers can last a lifetime. Can my right hon. Friend tell me what the Government are doing to address that concern, which relates to a group that is particularly difficult to reach?

Alan Johnson: My hon. Friend is right about the need to focus on people in this group, who sometimes miss out because we are focusing on children's and adults' services. That transition period is very important. The biggest contribution is made by public health. This is about smoking—there are still far too many youngsters starting to smoke at age 16 and even younger. The Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Dawn Primarolo), proposes to tackle that through a number of measures, including not allowing cigarettes to be sold in packs of 10. That will make a big contribution. We must also do more to tackle the problems of excessive alcohol consumption among children in their teenage years. That will be the subject of a report in the near future.

Patrick Cormack: What do I say to those of my constituents who truly believe in a national health service, but who have relations in Scotland who get treatments and drugs that they cannot get in England?

Alan Johnson: The hon. Gentleman should say that that is not true. There are no drugs available in Scotland that are not available in England. It is true that the Scottish system, via the Scottish Medicines Consortium, works more quickly than the one in England, but that is because it takes its lead from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, by and large, and it does not have a consultation process. It does not consult the public on its decisions. The hon. Gentleman, as a Member for an English constituency, can take heart from the fact that the accusations he hears in his local Dog and Duck are quite unfounded.

Charlotte Atkins: I am delighted that Fiona and Julian Keen in my constituency have opened a brand-new NHS dental surgery that is well supported by the local PCT, but does the Secretary of State recognise that two years on from the new dental contract, access to NHS dental services is still inadequate? What will he and the Government do to ensure that dental health inequalities are dealt with urgently?

Alan Johnson: My hon. Friend may know that a very important report on dental care has recently been published by the Health Committee, whose Chairman is in his place— [Interruption.] And of which my hon. Friend is a member—I was about to say that. A number of points in it are really important, not least the recitation of the history of the problem, which points out how bad dentistry was in the 1990s, and the need to introduce a new contract. The report raises issues that we need to look at. I believe that fluoridation is a major force in tackling dentistry inequalities, and a dentist said to me recently, "It gives poor kids rich kids' teeth." That is why the consultation that is going on in the south-west and will soon take place in the north-west is so important.

Paul Burstow: In tackling health inequalities, particularly regarding access to new drugs and treatment, does the Secretary of State agree that we should have a system that is far more transparent about NICE decisions, so that it is more accountable, and that the models used in appraisal decisions should be published?

Alan Johnson: We need greater transparency in all aspects of the process. The greatest transparency—I shall say more about this later—comes in the decisions of PCTs' exceptional circumstances committees where NICE has not ruled on a drug, and where there is a lack of transparency and consistency. That is the major problem, and we shall consider some of the issues relating to NICE that arose from a recent case. In a sense, the matter the hon. Gentleman raises is second on the agenda.

Neil Turner: May I urge my right hon. Friend to press the Treasury to release the moneys that have been allocated to the NHS in the current comprehensive spending review round? Will he work to ensure that the ACRA—Advisory Committee on Resource Allocation—recommendations that will be released shortly are implemented as quickly as possible so that all PCTs will have the resources necessary to eradicate health inequalities in our country?

Alan Johnson: The situation on allocations is that we are waiting for the pre-Budget report. We can then issue the operating framework along with the ramifications of the Darzi review, and that is when the ACRA report that my hon. Friend mentioned, which is crucial in tackling health inequalities, will become part of the process. He will not have to wait long; it will certainly happen well in advance of the beginning of the next financial year.

Mark Simmonds: While my party of course agrees that reducing health inequalities must be a key priority, the Government's record has not been good, despite what the Secretary of State has said. The gap in life expectancy and infant mortality has increased during the past decade, and we have the highest health inequalities in Europe. Does he agree that there can be no reduction in health inequalities without improvement in public health driven by local control of public health budgets, accurately reflecting communities' needs and tackling social and environmental issues, overseen by locally appointed directors of public health?

Alan Johnson: I do not blame the hon. Gentleman personally, but I wonder where we would have been on health inequalities if the Black report, which was commissioned in the late 1970s but reported in the early 1980s, had been implemented. Three hundred copies were published on a bank holiday Monday, with a foreword by the then Conservative Secretary of State, Patrick Jenkin, stating that everything in the report was basically rubbish.  [Interruption.] They are chuntering on the Conservative Front Bench, but they know that health inequalities worsened between 1979 and 1997. The hon. Gentleman might like to know that, since then, in eight years, the health of the poorest and most deprived in our nation has now reached the level that the rest of the population attained eight years ago. Infant mortality is down and life expectancy is up in spearhead areas. That shows what one can do with a Government who genuinely set tackling health inequalities as a priority. The Conservative party did nothing—indeed, we went backwards during their 18 years in government.

Occupational Therapy Services

David Amess: What recent assessment he has made of the adequacy of NHS occupational therapy services; and if he will make a statement.

Phil Hope: No assessment has been carried out centrally because it is for primary care trusts, in consultation with local stakeholders, to determine how best to use their funds for improving health and to commission occupational therapy services accordingly. However, today gives me the opportunity during national occupational therapy week to thank the profession for its huge contribution to helping improve the health and well-being of service users throughout the country.

David Amess: Let us deal now with 2008 issues, for which the Government are responsible. Earlier this year, my mother broke her hip while in hospital and I observed at close hand the wonderful work of occupational therapists. However, the Minister knows that, in adult social services, occupational therapists form 2 per cent. of the work force, yet deal with 35 per cent. of referrals. With health and social services becoming integrated, how will the Minister and the Government tackle the increasing number of referrals with such a small work force?

Phil Hope: First, may I wish the hon. Gentleman's mother well? I hope that her treatment proceeds successfully.
	I am happy to say that the number of occupational therapists working in the NHS has increased to 17,024—an increase of some 48 per cent. since 1997. There has therefore been a huge increase in the number of NHS occupational therapists. In addition, local authority occupational therapists provide social care and help. The integration of the two services is important, and I would like more of that to happen. We have good examples, such as the Torbay care trust, which is not in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, of local authorities working closely with PCTs to create a single referral pathway for those who wish to use occupational therapists. Self-referral is also popular. Those who self-refer get much benefit from going straight to an occupational therapist and gaining the treatment that they need to give them successful lives and improve their well-being.

Phyllis Starkey: An occupational therapist assessment is the first stage in accessing a disabled facilities grant. What is the point in having enough occupational therapists if there is then, as in my constituency, sometimes a two-year wait for people to get a disabled facilities grant? Work was done for one disabled child in my constituency only because the NHS intervened and paid for the adaptations that the council should have funded. Otherwise, he would have waited two years for an essential stairlift. What is the Minister doing to ensure that that is put right?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Other Back Benchers have got to be considered.

Phil Hope: I understand my hon. Friend's concern for her constituents, and she is right to express concern about waiting times that vary from one local authority to another. I hope that local authorities throughout the country, including the one to which she referred, will pay attention to the importance of speedier access when somebody has had a diagnosis and is clearly in need of some form of facility to help them with their condition.

Health Services (West Midlands)

Peter Luff: What assessment he has made of likely changes in demand for health services in the west midlands resulting from new housing developments in the region; and if he will make a statement.

Dawn Primarolo: The local NHS, in conjunction with other stakeholders, plans, develops and improves services to local people. In addition, the Department provides guidance and support to encourage local NHS services to promote well-planned, healthy and sustainable communities.

Peter Luff: The Minister knows about the genuine concern in south Worcestershire about the demand on our local infrastructure posed by the significant increase in housing numbers, planned under the regional spatial strategy—numbers that the Government want to increase still further. What reassurance can she give that the necessary increase in the area's health service infrastructure will be in place before the houses are built to ensure that existing residents and newcomers have full and proper access to the NHS?

Dawn Primarolo: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the local health service will constantly be looking to ensure that it is planning for the population that it has and for expected population growth. However, there are further requirements on both local authorities and the NHS to work together through their local area agreement to ensure that any planned housing development includes the plans for any necessary health or social care. He will know that Worcestershire PCT has formally set up a committee to look into exactly what the future growth in housing in the area may be and, therefore, what any future demands may be, including the development or expansion of Evesham community hospital.

Mark Pritchard: The Minister will know that the Government have overridden many of the housing targets set by local authorities for their areas. Therefore, there is a growing disparity between the increased number of houses being put into areas and the health provision that those areas are given. An example in my constituency is that we are expected to have 30,000 new houses in a single borough in the county of Shropshire, and yet the paediatric service is about to be downgraded. Is that joined-up government?

Dawn Primarolo: I say to the hon. Gentleman that the development of housing is intended to satisfy demands in the area. The gap between the current and future population is not always that great, but he is quite right; the work has been done on the local authority side, through the requirement both to plan for the health and well-being of their populations, acting in partnership with the local NHS to look at sustainable communities and take that forward. Of course, within that will be the development of new services for the current population as well. I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no question of extra housing being put in place without consideration being given to the future demands for health and social care.

Health Inequalities

Simon Hughes: What objectives he has set for reducing health inequalities in (a) England and (b) Greater London.

Dawn Primarolo: For England, the health inequalities national public service agreement target is to reduce inequalities in health by at least 10 per cent. by 2010, as measured by infant mortality and life expectancy at birth. There are additional health inequalities public service agreements to narrow the gaps in cancer and cardiovascular disease mortality and to reduce the prevalence of smoking in routine and manual groups.

Simon Hughes: Is mental health and mental illness taken into account in the assessment of health inequality? The Minister will know that south London, for example, has the highest rate of psychosis in the United Kingdom, which clearly has a huge knock-on effect in any family affected. Can she tell us that mental illness is taken into account and that it is in the Government's sights as a major issue that we need to tackle in order to reduce people's chances of experiencing mental health problems and increase their chances of being well?

Dawn Primarolo: I can assure the hon. Gentleman of that, yes. The issue is crucial to the investments that we are making in mental health and to improve the health of the nation as well. He will know that huge strides have been made in his area of Southwark in increasing life expectancy and reducing the low levels of infant mortality. In fact, progress is so good in Southwark that women now live on average for 82 years, which is higher than the English average—only just, but definitely higher.

Paddy Tipping: One of the ways of reducing health inequalities is to ensure that resources follow need. When will the Minister and her colleagues be in a position to increase funding to primary care trusts that are currently below target?

Dawn Primarolo: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said earlier, the announcements regarding PCTs' funding and the operational framework are expected to be made later this year. That will include the allocations arising from the working party considerations.

Gary Streeter: As poor access to GPs perpetuates health inequalities, will the Minister agree to do nothing to undermine the excellent work of dispensing surgeries in rural parts of England? As she well knows, some of the proposals set out in the pharmacy White Paper threaten the very existence of some of those surgeries.

Dawn Primarolo: There are no proposals to curtail or reduce the provision of services in rural areas, and the Government have made no proposals to abolish dispensing GPs. I have said that repeatedly at the Dispatch Box in this House.

Fiona Mactaggart: In Slough, we have seen two quite contrasting attitudes to health inequalities, as our local primary care trust was merged with those serving the much more prosperous areas of Windsor, Maidenhead and Bracknell, where people live longer. We have narrowed the age gap between Slough and elsewhere by targeting public health in Slough but, in the consultation about the new PCT, the residents of Windsor, Maidenhead and Bracknell said, "Will Slough take all the money?" Will the Minister ensure that areas of extreme need in PCTs get the resources that they need?

Dawn Primarolo: My hon. Friend raises a good question. I can assure her that, where there are small pockets of deprivation in an otherwise reasonably affluent area, resources will be directed to those areas of high health inequality within PCTs. Regardless of comments made by other residents, the Government are determined to continue to keep health inequalities at the top of the agenda so that we can narrow the gap.

Michael Penning: Londoners will have heard the complacent comments of the Minister today, but a more frank assessment comes from her ministerial colleague, Lord Darzi. In his report, he states that:
	"healthcare in London is not equitable, either in terms of mental or physical health outcomes, or in terms of the funding and quality of services offered."
	Is that something that the Minister is proud of, after 11 years of a Labour Government?

Dawn Primarolo: I am proud that all the spearhead groups in London in the areas of highest inequality are narrowing the gap. I am also proud of Lord Darzi's report, particularly in relation to London and to identifying polyclinics as the way forward to ensure that services are made available on an equitable basis to the population. That is a policy that the Conservatives have opposed.

Diabetes

Sally Keeble: What proposals he has to improve NHS services available to people with diabetes.

Ann Keen: We are working with key stakeholders, including the national diabetes support team, on a range of initiatives to support the NHS in improving diabetes care. We particularly recognise the valuable role that diabetes specialist nurses play in supporting people with diabetes. In March 2008, the national diabetes support team published "Improving emergency and inpatient care for people with diabetes", which highlights the importance of the diabetes specialist team, including the specialist nurses.

Sally Keeble: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that response. Is she aware that Friday 14 November is world diabetes day? Will she mark that day by taking up the concerns expressed by Diabetes UK about the patchwork of provision that exists across the country for this illness, which costs the NHS £1 million an hour?

Ann Keen: Yes, of course. World diabetes day is on 14 November, and this year its theme is diabetes in children and adolescents. I am pleased to say that I shall speak at the Diabetes UK parliamentary reception on Tuesday 18 November.

Sandra Gidley: By 2025, there will be an estimated 4 million people with diabetes, yet Diabetes UK has already received reports of cuts in services. What plans does the Minister have to ensure that people with diabetes have the support that they need in order to prevent the serious complications that can result from poor diabetes management?

Ann Keen: We are in constant touch with Diabetes UK and, in particular, with its support teams working on the "Silent Assassin" campaign, which was launched on 6 October. The campaign highlights the fact that diabetes is a very serious condition that causes heart disease, stroke, amputations, kidney failure and blindness. The advertising campaign includes a series of outdoor posters as well as newspaper and consumer magazine advertising. The Department will continue to work with Diabetes UK and to encourage all primary care trusts, and the NHS in general, to continue to work on this very important issue.

James Plaskitt: Is my hon. Friend aware of the Apnee Sehat programme that has been introduced in Warwickshire by Dr. Shirine Boardman? It particularly addresses the concerns of the Asian community, whose traditional cooking methods and dietary habits contribute to the very high incidence of diabetes in that community. Will she encourage other PCTs to consider such schemes as well?

Ann Keen: I welcome my hon. Friend's contribution. We are aware that the prevalence of diabetes can be up to five times higher among those from a black or minority ethnic background—for example, those from a south Asian background in the UK. That increased prevalence may be due to different underlying behavioural, environmental and lifestyle mechanisms—and, of course, the wonderful food that is produced. On a recent trip to India, I realised the seriousness of the escalation of diabetes in that country, with 40 million diagnosed with the disease and another 30 million undiagnosed. It is a serious issue, and I know that many innovative PCTs are looking into cooking methods. I would be pleased to hear more about the scheme that my hon. Friend mentioned.

Angela Watkinson: NICE guidance recommends that newly diagnosed diabetics should have structured patient education made available to them. Given the rising number of people, particularly children, suffering from diabetes, is the Minister confident that PCTs have the necessary resources and diabetic nurses available to provide that service?

Ann Keen: The hon. Member raises an important point about education. We are working continually with the support team that published "Improving emergency and inpatient care for people with diabetes", particularly in respect of children and young adolescents. It is an extremely important programme and the diabetes specialist nurse, of course, plays a pinnacle role in the team.

Keith Vaz: In declaring my interest as a sufferer from type 2 diabetes, I welcome the Health Secretary's proposed visit to the Silver Star centre in Leicester, whose aim is to raise awareness so that people can be tested for diabetes. Will the Minister pledge to increase the resources that the Government give to voluntary projects to help the centre to do that assessment, which is so vital to people finding out whether they have diabetes?

Ann Keen: Great work has been done on diabetes in my right hon. Friend's area. Since 2006-07, the quality and outcomes framework has rewarded practices for recording the ethnicity of 100 per cent. of new patient registrations. There is, of course, much more work to do, but I believe that we have made great progress.

NHS IT Programme (Data Security)

Andrew MacKay: What recent assessment he has made of the security of data held within the NHS IT programme.

Ben Bradshaw: Data held electronically can be secured using encryption and other measures that are not applicable to old paper-based systems. The NHS national programme for IT has particularly high levels of security because of the sensitive nature of the data held.

Andrew MacKay: Does the Minister accept that, with hardly a week going by without some Government Department having a serious breach of data security, patients are very worried about these sensitive matters. What real assurance can the Minister give that we will not pick up a newspaper tomorrow or next week and find out about a breach in his Department?

Ben Bradshaw: There is no such thing as a 100 per cent. guarantee of the type that the right hon. Gentleman seeks. I hope to reassure him on his question about the national programme for IT, however, because none of the data losses over the last few months has involved that programme. It has almost entirely been the old paper-based systems of record holding that have caused the problems, which reinforces the point in my initial reply—that computer-based systems, particularly those involving the national programme, are much more secure because of encryption and other measures. Data protection is a very serious matter and we take it very seriously. We welcome the Information Commissioner's proposals to strengthen sanctions against people who breach the Data Protection Act 1998. We require all hospitals to provide information about what action they take when such breaches occur.

David Taylor: Did the Minister see the recent article in  Computer Weekly, which revealed that the national health service has released 300 million confidential medical records—including dates of birth, postcodes, details of A and E visits and in-patient treatment—to an academic organisation outside the NHS? A further 250 million records of a similar level of detail of out-patient treatments were released. How satisfied is the Minister that the academic world will treat such sensitive information with the necessary confidentiality? Will the framework be as tough as the one he described in respect of the NHS?

Ben Bradshaw: I could not possibly be such an avid reader of  Computer Weekly as my hon. Friend, who takes a close interest in all matters to do with computers. However, I want to reassure him that the sort of release he refers to—I think I am right in saying this, but I shall check and write to him—is anonymised data used not only to help compile statistics on health care and outcomes, but for research purposes, which is an important function of the use of data.

Nicholas Winterton: To follow up the question asked by the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor), does the Minister accept that, if individuals' medical records get into the public domain by whatever means, it can be very damaging to the life and perhaps even the employment prospects of a particular individual? Will he assure me that the Government will do everything possible to ensure that medical records remain private? Are there grounds for saying that there might be compensation to an individual who feels that his or her life has been adversely affected by their records becoming public knowledge?

Ben Bradshaw: The last part of the question would be better answered by anyone who feels that they have been affected by that taking advice from their lawyer. However, I reassure the hon. Gentleman that the Department certainly places hard strictures on the NHS, including work done by GPs at local level, for that massive organisation to comply with data protection rules. There are clear responsibilities on individual health service managers at local level. They know their legal obligations, and there have been dismissals in the past 12 months as a result of data breaches. We take the issue seriously, but we are always looking to see how we can improve things.

Children's Trusts

Annette Brooke: What discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues on the contribution of local health services to the operation of children's trusts.

Ann Keen: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has regular meetings with the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families about a range of policy and operational issues affecting the health and well-being of children. This of course includes issues relating to the operation of children's trusts. Children, families and stakeholders have been engaged in developing the strategy over the summer. We therefore expect to be in a position to publish the child health strategy later this year.

Annette Brooke: The Audit Commission published a report last week that concluded that there is little evidence that children's trusts have improved outcomes for children. My concern is whether local primary care trusts and other health services right across the country are fully playing their role in children's trusts. The Audit Commission makes six recommendations for central Government. What action can the Minister promise to ensure that all services contribute to the improvements that we need so badly for children?

Ann Keen: The hon. Lady mentioned the Audit Commission's criticism. We are very disappointed that it chose to take such a negative approach. The headline message that has been quoted from the commission's press release is a misrepresentation of what its report as a whole says and draws on fieldwork that is now almost a year old. Since then, the children's plan sets out clearly our high ambitions for children and the role of children's trusts in delivering them. That will become more apparent with the launch of the children's strategy later this year. I believe that more information for PCTs will be announced by the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families on 19 November.

Topical Questions

Paul Burstow: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Alan Johnson: The responsibilities of my Department embrace the whole range of NHS social care, mental health and public health service delivery, all of which are of equal importance.

Paul Burstow: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that answer. After a decade or more of the NHS in my constituency, covering Sutton, Cheam and Worcester Park, going in ever-decreasing circles—consulting, drawing up plans, devising strategies and holding stakeholder events—at last it has come forward with an outline business case for much-needed investment in patient facilities at St. Helier hospital. Will the Secretary of State tell my constituents just how much longer they will have to wait for the Department and the Treasury to give the go-ahead, and will he meet me and other Members of Parliament with an interest in the matter to discuss it further?

Alan Johnson: I am glad that, despite the long period of consultation, plans are now coming forward. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman any idea of how long the process will take, because I am not aware of the situation, but I will be after we have met, and I very much welcome a meeting with him and his colleagues.

Lindsay Hoyle: My right hon. Friend received a nice invitation to visit Chorley and Preston hospitals. I believe that there is a great success story there. My right hon. Friend ought to come and see how the access treatment service centre is working under the NHS. He could learn from that, and I believe that it would be a good visit. Will he reconsider his position, and visit those hospitals sooner rather than later?

Alan Johnson: I was not aware that I had taken a position, but I would very much like to go to Chorley and see Hoyleism in practice.

Norman Lamb: The Secretary of State will be aware that the number of care home residents who have died as a result of clostridium difficile trebled between 2005 and 2007. I believe that the number is now 438, which is a horrifying death toll. Given that the Government have focused largely on tackling the problem in hospitals, what steps is he taking to address the problem in the wider community and does he agree that there must be zero tolerance for low hygiene standards in any health or care setting, wherever it is?

Alan Johnson: I agree that this is a crucial issue. We have not been concentrating on reducing the number of cases of clostridium difficile in hospitals to the exclusion of social care. Indeed, we have insisted on proper records being kept, and by next year we shall have in place a registration system for care homes that will be an important factor in raising standards. Our campaigns to increase awareness of the dangers of over-prescription of antibiotics, the need for people to clean their hands, and all the other issues that apply to hospitals have been conducted in care homes as well.
	We do need to ensure that there is no continuing increase in clostridium difficile cases in care homes. I believe that the registration scheme will be the biggest single factor in helping us, but we must take all the other measures as well to ensure that we do not see any further increase in cases in adult social care.

John Robertson: Will my right hon. Friend allay my fears about the problems with clostridium difficile, which is on the increase in Scotland, by ensuring—through his cross-border discussions with the Scottish Executive and, for that matter, with the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly—that best practice is shared so that everyone receives the same deal in the NHS?

Alan Johnson: My hon. Friend will know that, according to the latest statistics relating to the period between April and June, there has been a 38 per cent. decrease in cases of clostridium difficile among those over 65. That builds on decreases of 32 per cent. in the preceding quarter and 22 per cent. in the quarter before that. All those figures are in comparison with the same quarter in the previous year.
	This is a national health service, and we are constantly in touch with the devolved Administrations to discuss how we can learn from each other about tackling these issues. As I said in my reply to the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), there are three basic messages: the need for clean hands, responsible prescription of antibiotics, and the provision of cohort nursing and isolation facilities when outbreaks occur. Those three simple messages must be repeated over and over again.

Tony Baldry: In Oxfordshire, we all want to see the Oxford Radcliffe Hospitals NHS Trust succeed. Will the Minister confirm, however, that when the trust draws up its business plan for foundation trust status, it cannot expect year-on-year funding increases greater than the predicted funding increases for Oxfordshire primary care trust? Will he also confirm that when members of the independent reconfiguration panel speak of the need for county-wide health proposals, they, and the Secretary of State, expect exactly that—county-wide health proposals for Oxfordshire, not just Oxford-focused proposals?

Ben Bradshaw: When the independent reconfiguration panel reported, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made it absolutely clear that he accepted its recommendations in full, so the answer to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question is yes. As for the first part, I have been reassured by the Radcliffe that it is entirely aware that its financial planning must reflect the commissioning planning of the primary care trusts, and that it must continue to work closely with Oxfordshire PCT to ensure that it delivers what the hon. Gentleman wishes to see.

Ian Gibson: Will my right hon. Friend consider delaying his statement on co-payments until he has accepted that the exceptional cases and disparities across the country should be handled first? Does he agree that if they were handled first, there might be no need for co-payments?

Alan Johnson: My hon. Friend really ought to listen to the statement, because the issue that he has raised will feature in it.

Ann Winterton: Given that UK-trained radiographers demonstrate best practice, why is no funding available to provide courses for the statutory 30 days' academic study, so that those who wish to return to practice after a five-year break, for example to have a family, can do so? Does it not make good economic sense to support motivated returners so that they can enhance the UK's radiography skill base, rather than relying on attracting foreign nationals?

Alan Johnson: The hon. Lady's point sounds eminently sensible. Perhaps she will allow me to look into it and come back to her.

Eric Illsley: The medical director of my local NHS hospital trust has reported great difficulty in recruiting doctors to essential positions in the hospital below consultant level as a direct consequence of the restrictions placed on the number of international graduates coming into the country last year. Does my right hon. Friend have any proposals to review that system, as it would appear that there are too few doctors for the posts that are now available?

Alan Johnson: I am perfectly willing to speak to my hon. Friend about the problems in his patch, but the issue here is that we cannot have both a policy of self-sufficiency and an open-door policy. We now have the medical schools in place to produce our own graduates for jobs. The contribution made by international medical graduates has been enormous, but we ran into problems a couple of years ago because there were sometimes as many as 20 or 25 applicants for every position, and that does not make sense if the British taxpayer is putting more money into training our own graduates. We took measures this year to ensure that that situation did not arise, but I am perfectly willing to talk about any problems occurring in any part of the country, and particularly in my hon. Friend's constituency.

Peter Luff: Did the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Bristol, South (Dawn Primarolo), really mean her answer to my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) that the Government have no plans that will adversely impact on GP dispensing? I have received literally hundreds of letters from constituents who all share my view, and the view of GPs, that three of the four proposals in the current consultation document would seriously adversely impact on GP dispensing and, therefore, the rural areas they serve, and only one—option 1, which recommends the status quo—is acceptable.

Dawn Primarolo: Yes, I did seriously mean that answer, and if the hon. Gentleman refers back to the consultation document, he will see that it sets down four possible ways of looking at an issue that has not been reviewed for more than 60 years, but there are no specific proposals to do anything. [Hon. Members: "Oh!"] There are no specific proposals to do anything, as that is not the purpose of the consultation. So if the hon. Gentleman is saying the Government intend to abolish GP dispensing, that is not true.

John Bercow: Can the Secretary of State reassure me that, when the child health strategy is eventually published, I shall have cause to dance around the mulberry bush in joyous appreciation of its explicit commitment to take forward the speech and language agenda, or will the Treasury have spoiled my fun?

Alan Johnson: The hon. Gentleman did a first-class piece of work on behalf of myself and the Department for Children, Schools and Families. He will be ecstatic when he sees the results of the child health strategy review, and I will dance around the mulberry bush with him.

Andy Reed: Speaking at the men's health forum event in Manchester last week, I was struck by some of the innovative projects around the country to tackle the inequalities in men's health, but there was a common theme for all those projects: they were innovative and they worked, but their level of funding was unsustainable. When the physical activity strategy is launched, will my right hon. Friend ensure that we try to find out which projects work, and then fund them and deliver them right across the country, rather than think of new pilot projects?

Dawn Primarolo: Yes, I can give that assurance to my hon. Friend. Where such projects are clearly working, it is important that that experience is shared with other areas and its benefits taken forward. We must focus on that.

Andrew Lansley: Can the Secretary of State explain why he believes it is wrong for a cancer patient to pay £7.10 for a prescription in the community, while at the same time they can be made to pay more than £11,000 for a bowel cancer drug, despite its being recommended by their hospital doctors?

Alan Johnson: We are straying into the territory that will shortly be the subject of my statement. The issue of charging for drugs that are not available on the national health service is important, and I believe that I picked the right person to look into it. When I make my statement in a few minutes, I believe that hon. Members on both sides will agree that he has done an excellent job of the task that we gave him.

John Grogan: Does the Secretary of State agree with the findings of the Rarer Cancers Forum's survey of English primary care trusts, which concluded that the wide variety of processes used to determine exceptional cases causes confusion among patients, that things are often dominated by administrators rather than by clinicians, and that results are sometimes not produced in a timely fashion?

Alan Johnson: I do agree with my hon. Friend. As I mentioned, we need to address that issue about transparency, consistency and a lack of clarity. If he remains in his place, he will hear that some very important proposals in that area are contained in the report from Professor Mike Richards.

David Tredinnick: I am still concerned that there are no proper guidelines for practice-based commissioning or polyclinics in relation to integrated health care and that at a time when Lord Darzi is recommending innovation and choice for patients, there is no proper thinking in the Department about what to do in respect of herbalists, acupuncturists and homeopaths, who want to make their contribution. What does the Secretary of State have to say about that?

Alan Johnson: I hope the hon. Gentleman will accept that we have announced that we will run some pilots on how to have more integrated primary care and that we have had huge interest from PCTs all over the country. He should welcome this step forward, given his long history of supporting alternative and complementary medicines.

Greg Mulholland: I welcome the new Care Services Minister to his post and wish him the very best in this important role. I acknowledge the advances on hospice funding in the end-of-life strategy, but I am sure he will acknowledge that hospices still face a huge struggle to raise the funds that they need to survive. This year is the 30th anniversary of Wheatfields hospice in Headingley in my constituency—a happy event—so I invite him to join me, if he has the time, to visit that wonderful institution to see the work that it does.

Phil Hope: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that kind invitation. He is right to say that end-of-life care is a matter that the whole House should take very seriously, because palliative care services are essential. The Government are pushing the dignity and respect campaign right across the country, with 3,000 or 4,000 people asking how we can treat older people with dignity and respect when they need social care. Dignity and respect at the end of life is a particularly important part of that. He invited me to visit his constituency to see a particular hospice, and I am happy to check my diary to see whether I can accommodate that request.

Democratic Republic of the Congo

William Hague: (U rgent  Q uestion): To ask the Foreign Secretary if he will make a statement on the security and humanitarian situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

Bill Rammell: Recent fighting in the Democratic Republic of the Congo has further worsened a dire humanitarian situation. The displacement of an additional 55,000 people in North Kivu in the past week compounds the suffering that has continued for years. Access to food, sanitation and shelter is urgently needed. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary saw the suffering caused by the violence at first hand when he visited DRC on 1 November. We are determined that that suffering should be effectively addressed. The UK has increased its commitment to provide humanitarian aid, and we are supporting flights to help meet the immediate needs of displaced people in the region. We urge all parties to observe the current ceasefire and allow humanitarian access to those affected by the fighting. Contingency planning is under way to strengthen the provision of aid to those who need it.
	The issues underlying the violence are political. The leaders of DRC and Rwanda need to co-operate to reach political solutions to those issues, and in that regard I welcome the appointment by the UN Secretary-General of former President Obasanjo of Nigeria as his special envoy to facilitate this process. I also commend the action taken by the chairman of the commission of the African Union in appointing an emissary, who will travel to Kinshasa tomorrow. It is right that regional partners should play a role in the efforts to stabilise this volatile region and encourage stronger relations between neighbours. We will continue to do everything possible to bring peace to the region.

William Hague: I thank the Minister for providing that answer in the Foreign Secretary's absence.
	In view of the precarious humanitarian situation in DRC, including the loss of life, the risk of the spread of violence and the danger to peace, and the possible deployment of British forces, which has been mentioned, I hope that the Minister agrees that it is important that the Government continue to update the House as the situation develops. The Opposition are pleased that the Foreign Secretary visited the region quickly at the weekend. We support the work that he has done, his close co-operation with the French Foreign Minister and the product of that mission.
	I would like to question the Minister on four matters: the first is the scale of the humanitarian problem. It is said that 500,000 people are on the move without camps or fixed locations to go to. That is a fairly desperate situation. Does he have any more information about that?
	The second matter is the continuing role of United Nations troops. The House will be aware that the largest UN deployment in the world is in DRC; it involves 16 countries. What is the disposition of those forces? Where and how are they deployed? Can the Minister comment on their strength and effectiveness? The head of UN peacekeeping operations is in the Congo assessing the situation. When will he report to the UN Security Council? Five thousand UN troops are meant to be providing protection for aid. Is the Minister satisfied that those troops have the organisation and capability to do that effectively, especially given that the commander of the UN forces has resigned?
	The third matter is the involvement of UK troops. Last night—I think—the Foreign Secretary said:
	"We are not ruling out sending British troops to back up the UN force".
	A few days previously, the Minister for the Middle East and Africa, Lord Malloch-Brown, said that that option had to be
	"developed and on the table".
	How developed and on the table is it?
	Fourthly, on the politics of the situation, the joint ministerial statement between the Foreign Secretary and the French Foreign Minister rightly stated that the first priority was that the DRC Government
	"Should take proper command of its forces, honour its obligations under the Nairobi Accords and establish channels of communications with all communities in the country and its neighbours".
	In the Government's opinion, are those things beginning to happen? Is the Minister satisfied that all possible pressure is being exerted on General Nkunda to ensure that his forces lay down their arms?
	The Foreign Secretary and French Foreign Minister have warned both the Congolese and Rwandan leaders that they will be held to account for any further fighting. Can the Minister say more about how it is proposed that they will be held to account? Has he raised that matter with the International Criminal Court, which is already involved in the Congo?
	Finally, in welcoming the impending visit by the UN Secretary-General to the region, and other initiatives, including those of the African Union, how confident is the Minister that the Congolese and Rwandan leaders will be persuaded to pursue existing road maps on disarmament, integration, transitional justice, resource sharing, institution building and so on? Does he agree that, if the responsibility to protect is to mean anything, the UN has to demonstrate how it will assert its collective responsibility never to allow anything like the 1994 Rwandan catastrophe to occur again?

Bill Rammell: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for those questions and the tone in which they were put. It is certainly imperative that the Government keep the House up to date. Like him, I think that the Foreign Secretary's visit at the weekend was exceedingly timely and constructive.
	The humanitarian situation is bleak: 55,000 people have been displaced in the last week, which makes the figure 250,000 since August and 850,000 in total. That is very concerning.
	On troop levels, the right hon. Gentleman is right to point out that the MONUC force—the UN force in DRC—comprises 17,000 troops and is, therefore, the largest peacekeeping force in the world. Some 85 per cent. of the force is located in the eastern part of DRC. However, the first and overriding priority of the international community is to ensure that MONUC is effectively deployed. We are pressing, even today, to ensure that the troops are deployed in the right places for the maximum impact.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked about the involvement of British troops. We have made it clear that that is on the table as a last-case contingency provision, but even if we were to consider that, it is certainly not our immediate priority. Our immediate priority is to ensure that the MONUC force works effectively, because it is a substantial force. Were we to consider a contribution of further troops, we would do that in conjunction with our international partners on a contingency basis. We would need to be very clear about how any additional forces could supplement MONUC's efforts. A hasty, poorly planned deployment could complicate the situation further, which is why we are focusing all our efforts on ensuring that MONUC, which has the troops on the ground, operates effectively.
	The key to the situation is a political solution. It is welcome that President Kikwete has given a commitment to bring the two leaders together within the region. As the shadow Foreign Secretary pointed out, there are road-map commitments and a potential solution in place. We all need to use all our efforts to ensure that those solutions are taken forward.

Mike Gapes: The Minister will be aware that the Democratic Republic of the Congo is a vast country with 60 million people, most of whom earn less than half a dollar a day. It is very poor, yet very wealthy in resources. Does he agree that this long-standing problem will not be solved in Kinshasa but through its neighbours and by addressing the conflict between the Tutsi and Hutu peoples of the area around the lakes? An intensive political effort, particularly involving Rwanda, is required to get the political solution that is called for.

Bill Rammell: I very much agree with my hon. Friend that the situation requires a political solution. I know that he has taken a strong interest in the issue. It requires a political process between Tutsis and Hutus, as well as political engagement between the DRC and Rwanda. There is also an important key role to be undertaken by the AU. In that regard, I was pleased by the announcement that the AU will send its own envoy, Ibrahima Fall, to contribute to the process.

Edward Davey: The Foreign Secretary is to be commended for his action in recent days, working with his French counterparts. The Liberal Democrats strongly support the urgent and courageous humanitarian efforts that are now under way. He has rightly been cautious in promising British troops, given the appalling overstretch suffered by our forces in Iraq and elsewhere. The proposal for an EU force to back the UN mission that was discussed in the other place yesterday would have our support.
	Is there not a strong case for Britain and the EU to do more to offer cash, know-how and logistical support to any reinforcements that AU countries are prepared to offer to MONUC? Is it not also vital to clarify the mandate of the UN mission to ensure that it can operate independently of the Congolese army, given its involvement in human rights abuses?
	The Foreign Secretary has rightly stressed the roles of Presidents Kabila and Kagame in finding a lasting political peace, but does the Minister accept that a sustainable solution has an economic dimension, which will also require better control of the vast mineral resources that attract and fund the militias? Will the Minister assure the House that all UK companies involved in the illegal mining and minerals trading that is fuelling the conflict will be investigated and that this summer's welcome action against DAS Air and Afrimex was not a one-off?
	Finally, given that large parts of the global electronic consumer industry are mostly dependent on minerals primarily found in the eastern Congo, will the Minister take action to press for such industries to be forced to explain their sourcing policies and procedures?

Bill Rammell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for those questions. Cash certainly has a role to play, and we are one of the biggest bilateral aid donors to both DRC and Rwanda. It is clear that the UN mission has a role both to monitor and to enforce the accords that are being put in place. Ultimately, as the hon. Gentleman has pointed out, there needs to be a negotiated, political solution based on the commitments in place already. There is an economic driver for the present situation, in that the region has economic resources. We have been at the forefront of pressing, at international level through the UN, for the extractive industries transparency initiative as a way to ensure that there is effective governance and so that corruption and killing are not driven by a desire for economic profit.

Eric Joyce: I agree with my hon. Friend that a political solution is the key, but does he accept that there can be no long-term solution until the DRC army—the FARDC—has sufficient capacity?

Bill Rammell: That is why it is critically important that the MONUC force—which is on the ground and which, as I have said on a number of occasions, is the largest peacekeeping force anywhere in the world—operates effectively and is deployed in the right places. That is the argument that we are making, and the process needs to be taken forward.

Ian Paisley: I am sure that the Minister is aware that there has been a religious emphasis in some of the deaths that have taken place. I myself have lost my dearest friend, a missionary who was murdered along with his wife and four children. That had nothing to do with anything that he was doing but, in the midst of the terrible rebellion, there was terrible killing. I trust that the Minister and our Government will do their best to ensure that people whose work has a religious content have adequate protection.

Bill Rammell: I can certainly give the commitment that we are seeking to do everything that we possibly can in that regard. There has been a religious element to the killing, but fundamentally it has been driven by a conflict of interests in respect of economics, politics and land ownership. That is why we need a political solution, and that is what we are pushing for very strongly.

Doug Henderson: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary went to the Congo at the weekend, with his French counterpart. Will my hon. Friend the Minister say whether they had discussions about the need for reinforcements for peacekeeping troops? If so, did they discuss whether it would be better to have an EU force to supplement the existing UN force, or for EU countries to contribute directly to a UN force?

Bill Rammell: Obviously, our contingency planning has to take account of all eventualities, but I repeat that we have the largest peacekeeping force anywhere in the world on the ground in DRC. That force has to operate effectively, which means that the troops have to be deployed in the right places and the mandate needs to be clear. That is the focus of our efforts at the moment, in conjunction with providing humanitarian support.

Malcolm Rifkind: The Foreign Secretary deserves support for his diplomatic initiative, and there is no doubt that further humanitarian, economic and political initiatives can be taken. However, do the Government accept that it would be very unwise to create expectations that cannot be realised, and in particular to create ambiguity about the possibility of any significant military contribution by Britain? Will the Minister acknowledge that the UK's other commitments in Afghanistan and elsewhere mean that it is not in a position to make more than a purely symbolic contribution? In the circumstances, does he agree that it would be much more honest and wise, and in the best interests of all those involved, to make that clear at this stage rather than to dwell in ambiguity?

Bill Rammell: I respect the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his experience and knowledge in these areas, but I do not think that there has been ambiguity in our position. In everything that I have said today, and in everything that my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and Prime Minister have said, it has been made abundantly clear that the focus of our efforts is to maximise the opportunity for the UN force on the ground to do its work effectively. That is what we are focused on, and I think that that is the right way forward.

Hugh Bayley: It is not just the number of troops that MONUC has that is important, but how they are commanded and controlled. What can developed-country militaries—such as ours, NATO's and the EU's—provide to strengthen MONUC's ability to use the forces that it has at its disposal?

Bill Rammell: We already have advisory support in place, and that will be part of our thinking as we go forward. A number of partner nations contribute to the troop levels of the MONUC force, but in addition there is advisory support, and we will keep that under review.

Peter Tapsell: While the immediate need is to try to mitigate the appalling suffering of the refugees, may I ask the Minister whether, in future, even more serious and urgent consideration, above that which he has already mentioned, will be given to one of the root causes of the problem, which is the scramble by foreign firms for the control and exploitation of the mineral wealth of the Congo? That leads to the funding of the so-called warlords, who buy a great deal of weaponry, with which they dominate and terrify the civilian population.

Bill Rammell: I acknowledge that there is an economic dimension to the conflict, and that is why, as I say, we have strongly supported the extractive industries transparency initiative at UN level. We are fooling ourselves if we do not acknowledge that there is a significant political, ethnic conflict taking place. That has to be addressed, but it can only be done through a political solution. In particular, it means that the Presidents of DRC and Rwanda have to come together, with regional partners and international support, to make political progress.

Chris Mullin: Although the Congo is a vast country, the area in which the chaos has occurred is relatively small—not much larger than Sierra Leone. Given the disorganised nature of all the armed groups in the area, it is a place where a relatively small but well-disciplined and well-organised outside military force, under the command of MONUC or whoever, could make a difference, as the French demonstrated with Operation Artemis some years ago. One recognises the constraints, given our commitments elsewhere, but I hope that my hon. Friend and the Government will not rule out our making a contribution to whatever force eventually restores order there. Enforcing whatever political agreement is reached will have to be done by outsiders, because the internal forces are absolutely incapable of doing it.

Bill Rammell: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend; I know from having worked with him at the Foreign Office that he has enormous experience on this issue. He is right to stress that we are talking about a relatively small part of DRC. That is why our efforts are focused on ensuring that the MONUC force on the ground is appropriately and adequately deployed in the area. We do have some challenges, in that some of the international partners that form part of the MONUC force have caveats relating to their deployment. We are seeking to remove those caveats, so that we can deploy as effectively as possible.

Malcolm Bruce: Britain has become one of the biggest donors in DRC precisely because we wanted the country not to move back into a conflict situation, as most post-conflict countries sadly do within five years. Will the Minister acknowledge that, in the short run, we must have international forces to deal with the crisis, but in the long run we have to develop the capability of a well-disciplined army and police force to enable the Government of the Congo to govern the country? EU countries have been noticeably reticent about providing the support and training for which they have been asked. What can we do to ensure that they play their full part?

Bill Rammell: The right hon. Gentleman is certainly correct to identify that we are, and have been, a very substantial aid donor. Through the Department for International Development, we are committing £300 million over three years, and that is making a difference. The £5 million that was announced by the Secretary of State for International Development last Friday is already helping to facilitate aid missions from UNICEF and others in beginning to make progress. In the longer term, as he says, increasing the capacity for self-governance of DRC and others is critically important. We are making a contribution; we need to ensure that all states are making the contribution as effectively as possible.

Mary Creagh: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the steps that have been taken. May I press him on the role of children, who are recruited by those on all sides? May we have absolute clarification that MONUC and UNICEF will be empowered to identify and remove children who are involved with the warring factions? The Congo has an appalling record on children's rights. One in five children dies before they reach their fifth birthday. May I also ask him for clarification of the UN's role, and whether it is allowed to enforce civilian protection to allow humanitarian aid to get through? Finally, may I ask him—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mary Creagh: I will leave it there, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members should ask one supplementary question; I have given the hon. Lady two.

Bill Rammell: I thank my hon. Friend, who I know takes a real interest in these issues. Certainly, here and elsewhere in the world, her concern about the plight of children involved in conflict is critical, and the issue will be at the forefront of our thinking and planning. MONUC has not only a monitoring role but, importantly, an enforcement role—to enforce the accords that are already in place and, in particular, the zones of separation, which were announced through the UN. Ultimately, it has to be one of the building blocks for our substantive progress.

Bernard Jenkin: May I reiterate the point—I think it is a strong feeling in the House—that our armed forces are already doing enough, if not too much? It really would be intolerable if British armed forces were called on once again to stretch themselves even further when so few of our European allies contribute significantly to current operations.

Bill Rammell: Like the hon. Gentleman, I think that our troops are doing a superb job in many parts of the world. It would be irresponsible to rule out contingencies, given what is a very difficult situation, but all our efforts and statements have made it clear that our overriding priority is to ensure that MONUC operates effectively and is deployed effectively. It is the biggest peacekeeping force anywhere in the world, and we want it to succeed.

David Drew: When one goes and sees the MONUC force, it is actually very impressive, but we know that too often in the past troops have either been badly led, as my hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) said, or, more particularly, not been paid, which has led to ill discipline and problems on the ground. Will the Government ensure that, at the very least, the UN and all those who contribute to the force pay up front to make sure that it is equipped and able to do the work that it has set out to do?

Bill Rammell: My hon. Friend makes a powerful argument. We have a need, through the United Nations, for international peacekeeping forces, and given that need, it is critical that the troops in place are led effectively and properly paid. It has always been a priority for the Government, and it will continue to be the case here and elsewhere.

John Bercow: Further to the Minister's response to the right hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) about British aid to DRC, and in light of speculative reports about the less than wholly helpful attitude that the Government of Rwanda have taken thus far, reports about which the Minister will probably wish to be suitably circumspect, will the Foreign Secretary nevertheless remind the Rwandans of our strong aid relationship with them, including the relevant memorandum of understanding?

Bill Rammell: The hon. Gentleman is right to caution against irresponsible language in a fast-moving situation. He is right also to point out that this year we are committing £46 million to Rwanda. In this debate, it is important to make it clear that, even in this very difficult situation, some progress is being made. The military situation overnight in Goma town remains calm and under control; efforts are under way to reinforce troops in Goma; and humanitarian activity is slowly improving as access slowly improves. That is one of the key fundamentals in the situation. We must ensure that the non-governmental organisations and aid agencies gain access to the most acutely affected areas.

Rob Marris: Another key fundamental is respect for the rule of law. Will my hon. Friend assure me that the Government will press General Nkunda to hand over his military chief of staff, Bosco Ntaganda, for whom I understand there is an International Criminal Court warrant outstanding?

Bill Rammell: Those individuals who have committed such crimes need to be brought to book. That has certainly been a key part of our focus. Indeed, the Nairobi agreement was a clear political process that was negotiated between the two countries and saw a way forward on this issue. That still remains on the table, and we are pushing very strongly to ensure that it happens.

Norman Lamb: I noted the Minister's response to the concerns raised earlier about the role of commercial interests. However, may I draw his attention to the UN panel of experts report, which specifically listed companies and individuals implicated in what it described as a multi-billion-dollar theft of the country's natural resources? The report also described the role that that played in sustaining the conflict. Yet none of those interests—none of those individuals or companies—was ever brought to justice. Is there not a need for an international system to ensure that when companies or individuals are found to have breached fundamental rules, they are brought to justice?

Bill Rammell: As I said, there is an economic dimension. We have called and argued for transparency initiatives at an international level to help and facilitate the process. However, we are deluding ourselves if we think that the economic dimension is the sole driver of the conflict. There is a serious ethnic-political conflict, which needs to be addressed through a political solution in the region.

Douglas Hogg: May I reinforce the view of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Sir Malcolm Rifkind)? British forces are heavily engaged— indeed, overstretched—in Iraq and Afghanistan. Any significant deployment to the Congo would seriously dilute the resources available to British forces in Afghanistan and Iraq. That must not happen.

Bill Rammell: We are in danger of repetition on this issue. However, I understand the concerns being put forward. We would be irresponsible to rule out contingencies, but our overriding priority, in the United Kingdom and the international community, is that MONUC forces should be deployed as effectively and appropriately as possible. That is where our thinking is at the moment.

Andrew Murrison: Although it is good to get some measure of clarification from the Minister about the deployment of our already overstretched troops, will he confirm that he will do what he can, with his colleagues, to make it clear to our European allies that any participation in central Africa should not be at the cost of a full and proper engagement in Afghanistan?

Bill Rammell: We have certainly made the case that a number of partners should commit more effort to the situation in Afghanistan, and we will continue to make those arguments. Notwithstanding the desire for that, some genuine progress is being made in Afghanistan and we need to reinforce that.

Michael Penning: If there is the slightest possibility of our overstretched troops being sent to the Congo, pre-deployment training and the ability to get ready will be the most important things. How many troops are likely to be sent, and when will the units be told? They will need to get the pre-deployment in place.

Bill Rammell: With respect, the hon. Gentleman is getting ahead of himself. As the Foreign Secretary, my noble Friend Lord Malloch-Brown and I have made clear, we would be wrong to rule out contingencies. However, the overriding priority for us and the international community is to ensure that the MONUC force, which I state again is the largest peacekeeping force anywhere in the world, acts and operates effectively.

Tony Baldry: There is another angle to this issue. In 2005, every member of the Security Council and of the General Assembly signed up to the concept of the responsibility to protect, which, if need be, involves peacekeepers and peace enforcement. At present, disproportionately few members of the United Nations are contributing to UN peacekeeping. It is one thing for all those countries to sign up in New York to concepts such as the responsibility to protect, but they then have to deliver to the Secretary-General by being willing to contribute peacekeepers. Other UN member states do not have enough peacekeepers in Darfur, let alone in the Congo. When will we see the countries that subscribe to the responsibility to protect contributing to the UN by way of peacekeepers?

Bill Rammell: I know that the hon. Gentleman has taken a real interest in this issue, and I agree with a lot of what he has said. We do need international peacekeeping forces. If we are to ensure that policing the world—for want of a better phrase—is not to be left to one or two superpowers, others have to step up to the plate. We make the argument in respect of that political challenge, and I welcome the hon. Gentleman's support for it.

Andrew MacKay: Notwithstanding the possibility that the Minister will accuse me of repetition, is it not essential that the House should send a clear message to our European partners that if European Union troops are needed, as I suspect they might be, they should come from nations that failed to deploy in Iraq and Afghanistan? That message should go out loud and clear this afternoon.

Bill Rammell: I hear what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, but the other important point to make is that there is no military solution to the situation in eastern DRC without a political solution. That is why the efforts of the Secretary-General, who is sending an envoy to the region, are particularly important. The agreement from the African Union to convene the two leaders is important, as is the appointment of an emissary from the African Union. That political process needs to start being developed.

Crispin Blunt: The price being paid by the people of the Democratic Republic of the Congo is a graphic demonstration of the fact that conflict is the most lethal way of demolishing our nation's development objectives for the relief of poverty in other parts of the world. The Minister responded positively to two other hon. Members about the importance of the army of DRC, if it were properly trained, being an instrument to help to prevent conflict in DRC. Presumably training that army is a proper objective of British development policy.

Bill Rammell: The national forces in DRC play a key role in this respect. We must do everything possible to ensure that those troops can operate effectively, and that remains our thinking.

Stephen O'Brien: I thank the Minister for paying tribute to His Excellency Jakaya Kikwete, the President of Tanzania. I, and the other members of the all-party group on Tanzania, wish to do everything that we can to support those good offices in helping to broker dialogue.
	I declare an interest as chairman of the Malaria Consortium—we have people of our own out in the area at the moment. I hope that the Minister can give an extra assurance that MONUC and the other forces that are out there, including those in Uganda and Rwanda, can help to protect the aid workers and to ensure that they have access, as they require. We must also ensure, as a priority, that the World Food Programme is mobilising to supply through those countries, and that we do not hear further stories about the need first to count the people. We know that there are 500,000 people on the move; now we need to start getting the supplies to them and for those forces to be protected.

Bill Rammell: The hon. Gentleman is right: there are various elements to this process, and the political one is key. However, given the acute humanitarian concern—in the past week, 55,000 people have been displaced—we absolutely have to ensure that the aid agencies and non-governmental organisations have the access to ensure that they can get the support through. That remains a fundamental objective and priority. Our recent commitment of extra aid on top of that which was already being given is helping to facilitate that process. The push for a political settlement is at the top of our agenda.

NHS Patients (Access to Medicines)

Alan Johnson: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about Professor Mike Richards's review of current policy concerning NHS patients who wish to pay for additional private drugs.
	I start by paying tribute to Professor Richards and his review team for the diligence with which they have conducted this review. The report is informed by evidence from thousands of patients, carers and clinicians across the country, and it was completed with necessary urgency but without in any way compromising its thoroughness. The time scales that I set were deliberately challenging, because this issue is causing great concern and distress to a number of patients and their families.
	The review's terms of reference were to examine current policy relating to patients who choose to pay privately for drugs that are recommended by their clinician but not funded by the NHS and who, as a result, are required to pay for the NHS care that they would otherwise have received free of charge. I also asked Professor Richards to make recommendations on whether policy or guidance could be clarified or improved.
	Professor Richards quickly identified the underlying causes of the problem. His review starts from the fundamental principle that the NHS provides a universal and comprehensive service to all its patients, free at the point of need. During the Second Reading of the NHS Bill in 1946, Nye Bevan described the financial anxiety endured by people seeking medical help as the "first evil" that the NHS must vanquish. Yet Professor Richards's report shows that access to certain treatments on the NHS, particularly drugs for the terminally ill, is inconsistent, and as a result a very small number of patients feel that they have to pay for additional treatment and are worried that in doing so they will jeopardise their entitlement to NHS care. His report makes recommendations not only to revise the guidance for those exceptional and rare circumstances, but to improve access to certain drugs on the NHS, reducing the need for such patients to resort to private care. His recommendations are accompanied by proposals put forward by Professor Sir Michael Rawlins, chair of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, to employ greater flexibility in the appraisal of certain treatments, specifically those relating to drugs for the terminally ill. I accept Professor Richards's recommendations in full and today I can announce two immediate developments to make drugs more available on the NHS to those who could benefit from them.
	Since it was established in 1999, NICE has ensured not only that many thousands of patients benefit from access to the latest treatments, but that the taxpayer gets value for money. NICE provides wholly independent and scientifically rigorous assessments of the latest medicines and treatments and is widely admired across the world for its work. Its guidance on drugs and treatments is internationally respected, and many other countries are adopting similar models.
	The price of the drugs that NICE assesses is a matter for the manufacturers, but I can confirm that I am working closely with the pharmaceutical industry on new and more flexible pricing arrangements that will increase patients' access to new drugs. Those arrangements will include enabling drug companies to supply drugs to the NHS at lower initial prices, with the option of higher prices if value is proven at a later date. The new arrangements will also build on patient access schemes already developed for particular drugs. That will help to ensure that patients can access medicines that would not otherwise have been deemed cost-effective by NICE. I expect to be able to say more about that soon.
	In addition, NICE has for some time been concerned about its ability to take into account the premium that society places on helping those with terminal illnesses. Professor Sir Michael Rawlins has written to me to outline a new, more flexible approach to the appraisal process in order to address those concerns. NICE proposes to introduce more flexibility in the evaluation of higher-cost drugs, which have been shown to extend the lives of terminally ill patients, and where the less common nature of a particular condition may mean that the more flexible pricing arrangements we are discussing with the industry are not in themselves sufficient. The proposal will be implemented immediately while NICE holds a full consultation
	Those two measures will ensure that more treatments, which in the past patients may only have been able to access privately, will be available free on the NHS. The work of NICE is necessarily complex, but as we highlighted in the cancer reform strategy, it sometimes takes too long. Its appraisal guidance has often not been available for two years or more after a drug has been licensed. Steps have already been taken to address that, with, for example, fast-track procedures to appraise automatically significant new cancer drugs, but the time it takes NICE to publish guidance can lead to significant local variation.
	In response to Professor Richards's report, I am today setting out a new timetable to speed up the appraisal process for all drugs evaluated by NICE. In 2009, draft or final guidance will be available within six months of licensing for about half of the drugs that are being appraised through the fast-track single technology appraisal programme. In 2010, draft or final guidance for all new cancer drugs will be available within six months, on average, of a drug being licensed. We will work with NICE to explore further ways of speeding up the appraisal process with the intention of announcing the outcome of our work early in the new year.
	All of those measures will dramatically reduce the instances where a drug is available on the market but primary care trusts have no guidance from NICE on which to base their decisions about funding. However, we cannot totally eliminate instances of primary care trusts having to make decisions in the absence of NICE guidance.
	Professor Richards has found that patients and professionals are often unclear about who takes such decisions or how they make them. Patients and their families are often left bewildered about why a particular treatment has been denied, despite what they see as a clear clinical need. As we highlighted in the NHS constitution, we need to do more to improve the quality and consistency of the decisions, especially in any interim period before NICE's guidance is released.
	We will therefore publish a set of core principles to inform the way in which primary care trusts make decisions about funding new drugs. It is essential that the process, as well as the decisions, is clear and accessible to patients and the public so that, if a patient is denied access to a particular treatment, the reasoning behind the decision is transparent and consistent. We will publish detailed good practice guidance for primary care trusts about the processes that they should have in place to make decisions about funding new drugs and handling exceptional cases.
	Better local decision making, a faster appraisal process, fairer pricing and greater flexibility in evaluating certain treatments will address the main issues that have fuelled the demand from some patients for additional private treatment. However, it would be unreasonable to expect the NHS to fund every single new treatment, and we cannot guarantee that we will completely eradicate the circumstances in which a small minority of patients wish to pay for a drug that the NHS does not provide.
	The vast majority of people to whom Professor Richards spoke during his review thought that, in such circumstances, it would be wrong to take away a patient's entitlement to NHS care because they had purchased additional treatment privately. Professor Richards recommends that that practice should end and I agree. It will end with immediate effect.
	However, Professor Richards is also clear that there must be tight controls to prevent the NHS from becoming a two-tier system. Today, we will publish draft revised guidance, to take immediate effect, to ensure that the NHS is clear about how to deal with the rare occasions—which, with the implementation of the proposals already mentioned will be even rarer—when patients opt to fund additional drugs privately. The guidance will make it clear that NHS care should never be withdrawn and that administering private care should take place separately from NHS care to ensure that NHS funds are never used to subsidise private care. In short, there is no question of patients who can pay more being able to access a different and higher level of NHS treatment, but neither should any patient who has at some point paid for private treatment lose their entitlement to NHS care.
	Today's draft guidance sets out that, in such circumstances, private treatment should be provided in a private facility so that it is always clear whether a particular treatment is NHS or private. That removes any confusion about what constitutes a single visit or single episode of care. It will also remove any question of a two-tier system, whereby those who pay for additional care have their private care subsidised by the NHS.
	The NHS must, by definition, continually evolve and improve to fulfil rising expectations and offer the latest advances in medical care to all our citizens, irrespective of wealth, class, ethnicity or disability. The debate has been critically important to the NHS and the values that underpin it. I believe that the measures that I outlined today will, in enabling the NHS to exercise its natural compassion, help secure those values for the future.
	We are fortunate in Britain to have a health system that provides a comprehensive service for all patients, based on clinical need, with public funds for health care devoted solely to the benefit of the people it serves. The report by Professor Richards enhances those principles and I commend the statement to the House.

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. I am sure, too, that the House will wish to thank Professor Mike Richards for his report.
	I regret, however, that the Secretary of State's statement, far from clarifying the issues, leaves them as unsatisfactory as ever. Professor Richards's report says on page 6:
	"I believe that the option of NHS top-ups should be rejected".
	However, the Secretary of State says that if patients are denied access to new cancer drugs by the NHS, they can pay for them without losing their entitlement to NHS care. So, contrary to past guidance and in a U-turn on policy, patients will be able to be both private patients and NHS patients in relation to the same course of treatment, even if the Government dress it up as separate care, with patients being wheeled to another ward in the hospital to have their cancer drug administered and then a bill sent to them by the NHS.
	I refer Government Members to page 6 of the report, where the Secretary of State requires strategic health authorities to say where private drugs are going to be administered, which includes designating an area of an NHS hospital for the delivery of privately funded treatments, and to page 51, where the proposed option for separate care says that patients will receive different care from the NHS and the private provider, although this will often be the NHS, so the NHS will be the private provider.
	The Secretary of State has not really answered the question: is he in favour of top-ups or is he against them? In reality, the Government have jumped out of the frying pan and into the fire, from, on the one hand, denying cancer patients their entitlement to NHS care, which has rightly been abandoned, to, on the other, requiring patients to pay for their cancer drugs and thereby creating two-tier access to NHS care.
	That has happened because the Secretary of State, after we have asked him time and again, has not answered the key question: why are NHS patients in England not receiving clinically effective life-extending cancer treatments that are routinely available in other European countries? An OECD report published last week on pharmaceutical pricing said that UK spending on medicines per capita is below the OECD average.
	The Government admitted last year in the ministerial industry strategy group that the uptake of new cancer drugs in this country was slower than across Europe. We know from the Minister's reply that we spend 5.6 per cent. of our NHS budget on cancer services, whereas France spends 7.7 per cent. Why does the Secretary of State not understand that the heart of the issue is about enabling clinicians in this country to provide the cancer treatments that they believe are necessary for their patients?
	There are many steps that we could take on that. Why has the Secretary of State not followed the advice that we have published on NICE and taken ministerial referral out of the system? That would take six months out straight away and speed up NICE appraisals.
	Despite the talk from the Secretary of State about more flexible pricing—frankly, for two years I have been urging this on Ministers—why did he not implement a fully value-based pricing system for new medicines in the review of the pharmaceutical price regulation scheme this year, so that patients can access the treatments through the NHS and the price paid will reflect the therapeutic and innovative value? Instead, the Secretary of State still seems to be prepared to contemplate cancer patients paying thousands of pounds for their medicines, just as long as they are administered by the NHS in another ward, as separate care. If so, is he planning new primary legislation to introduce a new power for NHS trusts to charge for treatment?
	Is the Secretary of State preparing legislation to remove the private income cap on foundation trusts, which specialist cancer hospitals such as the Royal Marsden or the Christie would otherwise breach? How will he stop the new rules from becoming a bureaucratic nightmare? How can his rules be applied if patients exercise choice and go to an independent hospital or even go abroad in future, using the cross-border health care directive?
	How will the Secretary of State prevent the NHS from becoming a core service, with increasing numbers of top-up treatments or patients being pressurised to buy more treatments and services privately? Will he confirm to the House that separate care will often mean private health care provided by NHS trusts?
	Based on the Secretary of State's proposals today, how can he still argue that treatment through the NHS would be available based on need rather than on the ability to pay? Let us take the case of a patient with bowel cancer, whose hospital consultant recommends Erbitux, a life-extending treatment. At the moment, some primary care trusts provide that treatment, while others do not. Some hospitals pay for it themselves, while others require it to be administered at home with the patient paying. Still others require it to be administered wholly privately, with all the associated treatment costs being paid for.
	In today's statement, only that last case has been ruled out, and rightly so. It has always been morally repugnant to make cancer patients pay for their continuing NHS care. We made that clear months ago, and the Secretary of State could have made this decision months ago. It is equally unacceptable for cancer patients still to be put through months of delay—whether as a result of NICE appraisals or exceptional case panels—while not knowing whether their treatment will be provided by the NHS, even if their consultant says that it is the best, and sometimes the only, option for them.
	Those patients might also be aware that Erbitux will be provided for bowel cancer treatment in every other country across Europe, but not here. Indeed, it was Erbitux to treat bowel cancer that Linda O'Boyle needed to pay for. Hers was one of the central cases that gave rise to the review. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Baron), who represented Linda O'Boyle, her family and her interests assiduously in the House.
	The Government are planning to stop cancer patients having to pay £7.10 for a prescription, yet they are still prepared for those patients to pay £11,500 to acquire Erbitux for their bowel cancer treatment. The Rarer Cancers Forum estimates the cost of extending access to new cancer drugs at £175 million a year. The NHS surplus last year was 10 times that amount. This summer, the Secretary of State imposed a price cut on the pharmaceutical price regulation scheme, saying that that would save £300 million a year. Where is this money going? Why is the money voted by Parliament to provide care for patients not providing the cancer services that our constituents need, and which they know other countries provide?
	Let us be clear about this. There are two principles involved: if a patient has cancer, they expect the NHS to provide the treatments that they need and that are recommended for them, including those that will extend their life; if they want something different, and pay for it privately, the NHS should not penalise them for doing so. Those are two simple principles. Why could not the Secretary of State have made it that simple today? Why could he not have got up and said that those would be the principles that we would work to, while respecting the values of the NHS?

Alan Johnson: I am very surprised by the hon. Gentleman's response, not least because, if he has read the report, he will know that Mike Richards looked at a spectrum of alternatives. The first point—the important point—is that we will no longer withdraw NHS treatment from people who have to pay for a drug that has been recommended by their clinician but which is not available on the NHS. The hon. Gentleman says that he raised this issue months ago, but I never heard a single word about it from Conservative Front Benchers until the Conservative party conference, three months after we had announced the review. Yes, there was a question a year ago from the Opposition Back Benches, but it was not followed up at all by those on the Front Bench. Yet, suddenly, the Mr. Know-alls have always been aware of this problem and always been determined to resolve it.
	Why has Professor Richards, after talking to all his colleagues, come up with this proposal? At one end of the spectrum, there is the current, rather cruel, practice. Incidentally, I too pay tribute to the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Baron) for the work that he has done on behalf of Linda O'Boyle's family. At the other end of the spectrum, there is something that Mike Richards calls top-ups. I do not want to get bogged down in the terminology, but the understanding of people in the profession was that some people were concerned about the change in practice, and a thorough debate took place on the issue. The understanding was that a top-up system would involve an NHS patient being offered a range of choices, one of which would involve the patient in bed No. 1 being offered a drug that was not available on the NHS and paying the NHS for it, while the patient in bed No. 2 could not afford to pay for the same drug. However, Mike Richards points out that the only people who were vehemently proposing that option were the people who felt that a tax-funded system could not survive and that, at some stage, we would need to move to an insurance-based system. They are the only people, Mike Richards says, who put forward that view. That is top-up.
	What Mike Richards has said, of course, is that we should not withdraw this treatment; we should ensure that NHS treatment continues; we should allow the patient to pay for that treatment; but we should not under any circumstances—to reiterate a point put to me in a consultation by the hon. Member for Billericay—endanger the principles of the NHS. The system of top-ups would, however, endanger that principle.  [Interruption.] This is a serious issue, so let us not have barracking from the gallery; let us rather try to understand what Professor Richards has done in a very important report over a short period. We will deal with Europe and all the other peripheral issues, but what Professor Richards has said is that we cannot carry on with this cruel system, but neither can we allow the NHS to be used to subsidise private care.
	I do not know the current position of Conservative Front Benchers on this issue. It has been all kinds of things over the last 10 years and I am not sure what it is today on this particular Wednesday; it might well have changed again— [Interruption.] Sorry, it is Tuesday today, so it will no doubt change again tomorrow. The real issue is this: what Mike Richards says is that we should have separate care, perhaps provided in a private facility in an NHS hospital; that is fine, because we allow private care in NHS hospitals. If such care is not available in an NHS hospital, the patient can get the drug from a private practitioner and have it administered at home, which is what happens in Birmingham. However, NHS care will not be withdrawn from such patients and they will be allowed to buy those drugs.
	The final point made by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) was about flexible and value-based pricing, which was in the Office of Fair Trading review of the pharmaceutical industry a while ago. The hon. Gentleman and the Conservative party need to understand this: either we keep the current system, which Labour Members value, of reaching a voluntary agreement with the pharmaceutical industry through the PPRS or we move to reference pricing—the European model. I believe that we would lose out from that system.  [Interruption.] The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire asks why we did not introduce value-based pricing earlier. The answer is that we need to negotiate it with the pharmaceutical industry. If we do not negotiate it, we will have to introduce it through legislation, which is not the route we want to take. The negotiating route has led us to a patient-access scheme, which is being used for some drugs, and we will soon, I hope, conclude our negotiations and have a flexible pricing scheme.
	The worst scheme would be the Conservative policy launched a couple of days ago, which amounts to a huge bureaucracy with every drug having to be evaluated through the system. We would lose the voluntary agreement with the pharmaceutical industry and probably lose some major research and development in pharmaceuticals. I think that Conservative Members need to get their act together; as far as I can see, the policy seems to be put forward by "Confused of Conservative central office".

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. By any test, this is slow moving and we have other business to complete. I want to allow all Members seeking to catch my eye to make their contributions, but I need brevity from now on—brevity in both questions and answers.

Kevin Barron: I welcome the announcement that the timetable for the NICE evaluation process is going to be speeded up, which the Health Select Committee recommended in our last report. Professor Richards says that tight controls will be needed to avoid a two-tier NHS. Does that mean that NICE will need to be more flexible so that drugs presently not available on the NHS become available?

Alan Johnson: Yes, indeed it does. NICE has seen that people are concerned about this aspect of end-of-life care and believe that as people approach the last years of their lives, society should put a premium on that, which is not reflected in the current system. The supplementary system announced today will indeed mean more of these drugs being made available.

Norman Lamb: I thank the Secretary of State for early sight of the statement and join hon. Members in thanking Professor Mike Richards for his work in producing the report.
	The statement—albeit it a remarkable U-turn, albeit that it comes after pressure of a threatened judicial review and albeit that the Government seem to be fudging or drawing a distinction between what is proposed and the principle of top-ups—is none the less a welcome step. It is a complex area. There are understandable anxieties about the implications of moving in the direction outlined, but the bottom line is that we cannot justify a cruel and pernicious system that threatens to withdraw NHS care if a patient chooses to follow a clinician's advice in paying for a drug that is not available under the NHS. However, allowing top-ups must go hand in hand with reforms to ensure that access under the NHS is available to drugs that are routinely accessible in Europe but are not currently available in this country.
	On proposals to extend access, the Secretary of State's ambition is to achieve draft or final guidance within six months, but he will only achieve that for all drugs by 2010. Surely if it is only draft guidance within six months, there could be a further long delay in producing the final guidance. Why will it take so long to get to the six-month point, given that there is already a much faster system in Scotland? I know that the process there is different, but it usually ends up achieving the same verdict as we do in England only it does so much quicker. That the system is taking so long results in a great sense of unfairness in England.
	The Secretary of State said nothing about the need to reform the requirement of ministerial referral. Surely we should scrap that and allow NICE to make its own decisions. Surely, also, we should ensure that there is complete transparency of the modelling that NICE undertakes in reaching its decisions.
	The Secretary of State referred to the need for more flexibility in the evaluation of high-cost drugs. Will he consider widening the factors that NICE takes into account—the impact on carers and the potential to get an individual back to work—in assessing whether a drug is cost-effective? There is a key question for him: under the reforms, which drugs that have been rejected does he expect will become available? What analysis has he undertaken of that? He must have done some. Will appraisals be reopened on drugs that have recently been rejected by NICE? He said that the current rules would come to an end with immediate effect, but at the same time he announced a consultation on how those new rules will apply. What will happen in the meantime?
	The right hon. Gentleman said that treatment must be in a separate facility, but is that not inconsistent with good quality patient care and patient safety? Will he address that specific concern?
	With regard to the importance of local transparency in the decision-making process by primary care trusts, when will the Secretary of State announce those core principles, and will they take into account social factors—family circumstances—in determining whether a drug should be available?
	The statement contained nothing about the absolute importance of independent advice to patients on whether it is right to pay for an additional drug. It also said nothing about the potential need to regulate any market that might develop in dealing with very vulnerable people at a critical stage in their life. Finally, the right hon. Gentleman said nothing about addressing the potential conflict of interest for clinicians and the NHS in making these difficult judgments. Will he address those concerns as well in his response?

Alan Johnson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcome for the statement. He says that it is a remarkable U-turn, but this guidance has been around for many years. We can track it back to the early '80s, under the Thatcher Government, and it was there before that.  [Interruption.] He says from a sedentary position that it is a U-turn from what I said, but I said that if we allowed NHS care and private care to be given together—I talked about an episode of treatment, to introduce a new variation into all the descriptions, back in December last year—that could be the end of the founding principles of the NHS. It could be, and Mike Richards has accepted that it could be, which is why separate care is an important part of his proposals.  [Interruption.] Everyone in the House apart from those on the Conservative Front Bench understands that Mike Richards' terms of reference were to defend the principles of the NHS, and that combining private and NHS care would be the route to an insurance-based system and the end of a taxpayer-funded system.
	The hon. Gentleman said that the proposal would have to go hand in hand with greater availability. That is what Mike Richards recognised, and that is why a large part of my statement was concerned with that. The hon. Gentleman asked the reason for the delay in NICE's appraisal of the drugs. I understand that it is due to the tail in the system. We committed ourselves to a more rapid appraisal a year ago in our cancer strategy, and as new drugs come in we can move quickly, but the old drugs are still being appraised under the old system. It will take us some time to work our way through the backlog, but NICE has already announced that it is increasing the number of appraisal teams and standing committees and starting more appraisals earlier, so I think that the time scale is realistic.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned ministerial referral, which was also mentioned by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire. We are not handing the whole process over to NICE and taking politicians out of it completely, but once a drug has been referred to NICE, the process becomes a NICE process, independently run. NICE also has an enormous role in the earlier process of selecting drugs to be referred. It is responsible for the consideration panels of experts before the matter is sent to the referral oversight group, which consists of clinicians. The ministerial sign-off for which my right hon. Friend the Minister of State is responsible is a very short part of that process.

Mark Simmonds: It takes 12 months.

Alan Johnson: It does not take 12 months. Here is £13 billion of taxpayers' money, and once again the Conservatives want to remove Government completely from the process and allow a giant unelected quango to deal with it.
	The hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) referred to the consultation that NICE has undertaken. NICE has said that the new procedures will apply while its consultation takes place. Those new procedures start today. I believe that members of NICE are the best people to say which drugs are likely to come through the process, and I believe that NICE will reappraise drugs through the process as well if they are referred.
	The core principles put forward by the PCTs should be ready early in January.

Howard Stoate: I welcome the measures proposed in the statement, which will go a long way towards speeding up the process and making more drugs available. However, I have some concerns about what my right hon. Friend has said. One of the founding principles of the NHS is that it is based on medical need rather than ability to pay. If a drug is medically necessary, how can it be right to make it accessible only to those who can afford it? If a drug is needed it should be available, and it should be available to all.

Alan Johnson: The drugs that come through the NICE process will be available, thanks to the NHS constitution which will make it absolutely clear that patients have a right to access the drugs. There will be more of those drugs coming through. The PCT exceptional circumstances committees will have a far more transparent way of considering drugs that have not come to NICE for appraisal, have been refused by NICE or are off-label, so there will be a better system.
	I would previously have shared my hon. Friend's fear that there is no way of ending the previous co-payment advice without jeopardising the basic principles of the NHS, but I think that Mike Richards has found a way of doing that. Even when drugs come through the new system which are not available on the NHS—and there will be fewer of them—we will no longer withdraw treatment, but will ensure that it is administered privately.

John Baron: Today's announcement is very welcome. I thank the Secretary of State and Professor Richards for our constructive meetings. Let me also briefly pay tribute to my constituent Mr. Brian O'Boyle. He had the courage to speak openly about the death of his wife, which helped to spark off the process and the review.
	The announcement is positive for two reasons. First, it ends the obscene threat that NHS care could be withdrawn from patients simply because they wished to access care that was not available on the NHS. Secondly, it will, I hope, act as a catalyst to widen access to beneficial treatment for cancer patients. May I, however, press the Secretary of State on the issue of continuity of care? Can he put my mind at rest by assuring me that the separate care to which he referred will not involve sending patients halfway across town to have their private care administered? I am sure he will agree that continuity of care is important, given that some drugs need to be administered concurrently, and given the condition of many patients.

Alan Johnson: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's remarks, and I, too, pay tribute to Brian O'Boyle. The hon. Gentleman eloquently described that case of a woman who had spent her whole life in the NHS being charged for the cost of her treatment or having that treatment withdrawn, and any politician who came across the case would have felt that if there had not previously been the time to review the guidance, the time had certainly come now.
	The hon. Gentleman raised an important question—which the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for North Norfolk, also raised, but which I did not get around to addressing in my reply to him. Professor Richards says in his report that there may be circumstances in which one would need to give such care to a patient in an NHS environment for clinical safety reasons; he expects such situations to arise very rarely, but they may do so because patient safety comes first.
	In terms of where patients would have to go, there is currently no difference: they would have to access the medicine from the private sector. What we are saying in the report, as one of Mike Richards' recommendations, is that strategic health authorities should look at this, to make sure that patients know exactly where they need to go to access the drugs in a private setting—it may be in an NHS hospital, a private clinic or at home. Professor Richards and his colleagues think this is entirely appropriate, and that it will work well and will not cause any concerns, and it is certainly far better than the current system in which, as the hon. Member for Billericay pointed out, the cruelty of withdrawing such treatment is beyond anything we in this House would want to cause.

Gisela Stuart: I welcome the Secretary of State's statement and his recognition that some health economies, such as Birmingham's, have already successfully worked out a way of dealing with the private sector and the NHS. However, I did not quite get a sense of whether there is any distinction in the primary care trust drugs guidance for situations where the pharmaceutical company has, for its own reasons, never applied to NICE for recognition. Does this apply to all of them, irrespective of whether they applied?

Alan Johnson: If the drug company has not applied for this, the same circumstances will apply: the drug has not been NICE-approved, because the company has not applied to have it NICE-approved. However, that does not stop a PCT allowing that drug to be prescribed, which is why the transparent and clear process around PCT exceptional circumstances committees—which is where such matters would rest—is an important part of the Richards review.

George Young: I welcome the Secretary of State's statement, but I would be grateful for clarification on one point. The Richards review was about those who are required to pay for their NHS care because they have opted to pay for drugs privately. Can the Secretary of State confirm that, from today, none of those patients will receive an invoice from the NHS for their NHS care?

Alan Johnson: In terms of what has gone on before today, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman and the House that the old guidance has gone and the new guidance replaces it with immediate effect. What has happened before will be for PCTs to deal with. In the Linda O'Boyle case, the PCT refunded the money. I would not like to make those decisions for them because all kinds of circumstances could be involved, but I think the PCT in Southend set a good example.

Charlotte Atkins: I very much welcome the Secretary of State's statement, particularly his comments on the speeding up of NICE decisions, the more realistic pricing of drugs in the future, and the ending of the cruel withdrawal of treatment from the terminally ill who want to buy drugs privately. However, many people will be worried that this is the thin end of the wedge, undermining NHS principles of treatment free at the point of need. Also, I have concerns—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not think we need an "also", as the hon. Lady has made her point.

Alan Johnson: I understand my hon. Friend's concerns. This has been a difficult process because of the very strongly held views, as anyone will know who heard the debates on the radio or in this House, or the debates organised by the British Medical Association or the King's Fund. There are strong opinions on both sides of the argument. The evidence submitted by the Royal College of Nursing sticks in my mind. It made the point that the NHS is about providing services, not withdrawing them, and it made the cruelty case—it said there was a lack of clarity and a lack of charity in how the current arrangements applied. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) was the first person to raise this issue with me. He said to me a while ago, "Look, we need to rethink this."
	I do not believe this is the thin end of the wedge for the NHS. I think carrying on with the previous system is what would endanger the principles of the NHS, because people saw it as dogmatic and ideological, and not in any way related to the person's individual needs. So I think this strengthens the NHS, rather than weakens it.

David Curry: But does the Secretary of State accept that two patients can have an identical operation carried out in the same hospital by the same consultant, but because they live in different PCT areas one will have that operation paid for whereas the other will have to pay for it himself or herself? Does he understand the resentment that that provokes? What can be done to remedy the problem?

Alan Johnson: I understand that. The NHS constitution, when we finally get it launched, will help in some ways. Mike Richards makes a recommendation pointing out that in the north-east of England an overview of this issue is taken, so that PCTs do not make different decisions. Not only is there work to be done with the PCTs, but, as he recommends, we should examine how they deal with this on a regional basis. The right hon. Gentleman correctly says that this causes huge resentment and great upset.

Doug Henderson: I usually find eulogistic questioning awkward and it is always counter-productive, but may I compliment the Secretary of State on his statement? In comparison with the arguments put forward by Conservative Members, it was clear, concise, coherent, fair and based on sound common sense, and it will be very much welcomed in my constituency. Does he believe that NICE will need additional resources to be able to carry out its reviews more speedily?

Alan Johnson: I preferred my hon. Friend's description of my statement to the Conservative party's one. I can confirm that this is all eminently doable within NICE's current budget. Medical science moves on; end-of-life treatments and the drugs available to treat rare diseases, such as melanoma and so on, were not an issue five or 10 years ago. NICE has been keen to keep pace with those changes, and there is nothing to prevent it from introducing this immediately and taking note of the consultation in five weeks' time. We will then make a further announcement in January.

Evan Harris: Does the Secretary of State accept that there are lots of unanswered questions? For example, how does he deal with the situation of an NHS consultant referring and recommending a private treatment given by himself in an NHS pay bed with the income going to that trust? How does he deal with the problem faced by someone who responds to a private treatment that keeps them alive but then runs out of money and finds that the drug is not allowed on the NHS because it worked for only a few people? Surely that treatment should then become payable by the NHS. Does he accept that more work needs to be done on those questions?

Alan Johnson: I accept that, as does Mike Richards. He has done a thorough piece of work in a short space of time; he needed to do so, given the urgency that the public attach to this. He says in his recommendations that measures need to be in place to prevent what the hon. Gentleman described. I think that the ethos and the integrity of doctors, their contract, the fact that they are not allowed to raise the issue of private drugs—it must be raised by the patient, rather than by the practitioner—and perhaps some other measures that we could introduce would resolve those problems. If we stick to the current system, what the hon. Gentleman describes could happen just as well, except that tied on to it would be this withdrawal of NHS treatment.

Rob Marris: I welcome the statement. Some PCTs need money to pay for these drugs, and some PCTS, such as Wolverhampton's, still do not receive full funding as per the Government's own formula. By what date will all PCTs receive full formula funding?

Alan Johnson: I cannot give a date for that. All I can say to my hon. Friend is that, as he will know, we started off with many PCTs being about 15, 16 or 20 per cent. away from having their proper funding formula; no PCT, not even the one in Northamptonshire, is now more than 3 per cent. away from that target. This is the way we must go if we accept that we do not want to take money away from more affluent areas. We do not want to reduce the health spend; we want to increase it for everyone, but we want to increase it most for those areas with the most deprivation. We need a gradualist approach. As a good Fabian, he will recognise that that is the way to go.

Richard Taylor: I have not read the report, and I regret that I am now rather more confused than I was. I still cannot see a fair way of allowing extra payments from those who can afford them. To avoid the need for that, will the Secretary of State revisit better care, better value indicators, which alone would save the NHS £2 billion per year? That could be added to the money available to NICE so that it could pass many more drugs.

Alan Johnson: I respect the hon. Gentleman's judgment on this matter, and perhaps we should have a meeting with Mike Richards to talk this through. The primary point is not about what we will do—we will do many things, including make more drugs available—but about what we will not do: we will no longer withdraw that NHS treatment.
	There is a second point: no party, not even the Conservative party, which has its weird and wonderful moments, is arguing that the NHS must pay for every drug that comes on the market. We could never do that. Despite making more drugs available, in some circumstances a few people—even fewer after we have implemented the proposal before us—will face the dilemma of having to pay for a drug that is not available on the NHS. We believe, therefore, that the principle of separate care, as proposed by Professor Richards, is the right way to proceed.

David Tredinnick: First, does this mean that a patient being successfully treated by a traditional Chinese medicine practitioner, using herbs and acupuncture, will have their costs paid by the NHS? Secondly—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am trying to ration time, so hon. Members may ask one question only, I am afraid.

Alan Johnson: I am afraid not.

Andrew George: Can the Secretary of State reassure me that the NHS will use its procurement muscle when negotiating, especially in regard to what he described as the new and more flexible pricing arrangements, which will enable "drug companies to supply drugs to the NHS at lower initial prices, with the option of higher prices if value is proven at a later date?" Will that be a one-way street? In other words, if the value is not proven, or if more drugs are purchased than anticipated, will the price go down?

Alan Johnson: That is a question for NICE in deciding how to operate the system. Currently, drugs companies come in with a price at the beginning and cannot alter it, but under a value-based system they could come in with a lower price and then argue for a higher price later.

Andrew George: But can it go down?

Alan Johnson: I shall take advice from NICE on that, but I doubt it. The whole point is to have a voluntary, rigorous agreement. Drug companies have agreed to a 5 per cent. reduction in drug prices with a further 2 per cent. reduction in prospect. It is a great tribute to them that they have entered negotiations and that they are proceeding so successfully. I reassure the hon. Gentleman that a robust negotiating system will be put in place, but at the end of the day it is up to drugs companies to seek to make a drug available and to put it through the NICE process. It must be voluntary. We cannot proceed otherwise.

Julian Lewis: The Secretary of State said in his statement that only a small number of people have had to pay privately for these top-end drugs. Will he indicate how many people have had the NHS entitlement withdrawn and can he think again—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I appeal to the House. We have other important business to reach. The Secretary of State's answers are lengthy, in an attempt—I am sure—to help the House, but if I am to get everybody else in we must move more quickly.

Alan Johnson: Mike Richards says that not enough evidence or information is available—one of his recommendation is that my Department gets more. He quotes the Joint Collegiate Council on Clinical Oncology, which carried out an online assessment and concluded that about half of those patients refused a drug go on to pay for it. Incidentally, 15,000 people a year go through the process and two thirds have the drugs approved by their PCT. However, not even Professor Richards thinks that that is very robust. We need to do more work to get an accurate picture.

Greg Mulholland: I commend this positive step and remind the House of the heroic Jane Tomlinson, who did so much for charity but could not access the drugs that she needed.
	May I ask the Secretary of State a practical question about the ever-changing medicines available for people who are terminally ill? NICE often takes time to make decisions and decisions on what the NHS will fund often change, so will the Secretary of State say whether, if someone starts to pay for treatment straight away—clearly, if they medically need to do so, they should—they will get their treatment refunded, if, at the end of the process, it is recommended that the NHS should fund it?

Alan Johnson: The decisions do not apply retrospectively. A NICE decision applies from the time at which it takes effect. In terms of the additional care that we are talking about, when NHS care is withdrawn from a patient in those circumstances that comes into effect immediately.

Graham Stuart: The Labour party of Nye Bevan is gone and there are few Labour MPs to mourn its passing. Why will my constituents have to pay thousands of pounds to receive cancer drugs that are routinely available elsewhere? Why will they be wheeled down the corridor to a designated private room in an NHS hospital? Is it because of the Labour Government's failure to manage budgets properly?

Alan Johnson: I shall take that question as an audition for the Royal Shakespeare Company and treat it with the contempt it deserves.

Paul Burstow: Speedier NICE appraisal decisions are essential but they are not sufficient. We also need more transparency and accountability in NICE decisions. In the light of the Law Lords' decision to refuse permission to NICE to go to appeal on the dementia drug case decision, will the Secretary of State now put it beyond doubt that he expects NICE to place all the models it uses in respect of decisions on appraisals into the public domain?

Alan Johnson: That is an issue for NICE. It needs to comply with the court judgment. This is not the end of the story about NICE, as I hope to make fresh announcements early in the new year. Perhaps we will return to the subject then.

Food Labelling (Nutrition and Health)

Helen Southworth: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require simple, uniform nutritional labelling on the front of packaged foods; and for connected purposes.
	In our busy lives, even with the huge improvements to the labelling of packaged food since I first tabled a food labelling Bill four years ago, we often shop in a hurry. We do not have time to stop and study labels in detail, or we might just not have very good eyesight. We need to be able to compare and choose healthy options easily and simply. Front-of-package labelling that gives at-a-glace information about how much fat, sugar and salt different foods contain is crucial for shoppers.
	The Co-operative introduced front-of-pack labels 10 years ago and was one of the first retailers to sign up to the Food Standards Agency's traffic lights scheme. Co-op customers say that they find front-of-pack traffic lights simple and straightforward and this year the Co-op decided to include them on all products, with a few exceptions. Fruit and vegetables will have nutritional information without colour coding, because the health message in their case is the importance of five-a-day.
	Sainsbury's uses multiple traffic lights on almost 5,000 of its own brand products and has found a strong recognition—93 per cent.—of the label among customers. Customers use the labels to choose sandwiches and healthy meals so that they can get healthy. The company is aiming for fewer red traffic lights by reducing salt, sugar, fat and saturated fats and removing all hydrogenated fats from its own brand products. Sainsbury's is being led by its customers, as 63 per cent. of them said that multiple traffic light labels were helping them to eat more healthily.
	Asda has a combination food labelling system. The traffic light approach was the option requested by customers and Asda has received hugely positive feedback since introducing it. The labels include guideline daily amounts and are designed to be read and understood in less than two seconds.
	Many other retailers and manufacturers including Boots, Marks & Spencer, Waitrose, McCain, Virgin Trains, National Express and YO! Sushi are using the FSA's multiple traffic light scheme. Other retailers have responded to customers' desire for quick, easy-to-see information by designing other labelling schemes using guideline daily amounts.
	Tesco's label also includes a pastel colour code for each main ingredient. At Tesco, too, front-of-pack labelling has driven changes in product content. In the last 12 months, salt levels have been reduced in more than 200 products and fat has been cut in more than 150 products. The introduction of front-of-package labels by a wide range of retailers is giving people much more control over what they eat.
	Why, therefore, do we need simple, uniform nutritional labelling on the front of food packaging? In the words of the Government Office for Science,
	"Britain has become a nation where overweight is the norm".
	The office predicts that, on current trends, within 40 years half of adult women, two thirds of adult men and a quarter of all children could be obese—and obesity increases the risk of a range of chronic diseases, especially type 2 diabetes, stroke and coronary heart disease, cancer and arthritis. Today, more than 2 million people over 18 are registered with their GPs as having diabetes, and nearly 2 million have coronary heart disease.
	Back home in Warrington, more than 8,000 people are on the patient register with diabetes and nearly 8,000 with coronary heart disease. That means that there are 16,000 people and their families in my home town with a very urgent need to know how much salt, sugar and fat their food contains, but we all want to be able to take control of what we eat and to know what is inside the packaging, and everyone needs to be able to access that information. Those who cannot read too well or calculate percentages—or people who are in a hurry—also need to know that information, and not just people who can understand complex variants.
	The Food Standards Agency has commissioned a major piece of work on comprehension and use of the UK's nutrition signpost labelling schemes. The interim report published this September found that customers like front-of-package label schemes and use them to make choices, but that various issues were causing confusion for some customers.
	The FSA report said that people were confused about what the colours in traffic light labels meant, and about whether there were different guideline daily amounts for different people according to gender, age and body type. It found that people were uncertain about how GDAs related to portion size and the mathematical calculations that were needed, as well as about the meaning of the GDA pastel colours and the percentages involved. They were even confused about what the acronym "GDA" meant.
	Those confusions have to be resolved in a simple system that meets the need of all consumers. Which?—formerly known as the Consumers Association—is absolutely clear about what needs to be done:
	"If consumers are going to improve their diets, they need to be provided with information that helps them to make healthier choices. The Food Standards Agency is carrying out extensive research to establish the best labelling approach for achieving this. The food industry needs to give their customers a helping hand by adopting the approach that works best".
	Over 14 million ready meals are eaten each week in Britain. Last summer, Which? bought all the cheese and tomato pizzas, beef lasagnes and chicken tikka masalas that it could find in the main supermarkets. For each type of meal, it compared the fat, saturated fat and salt content. It found that people could eat five times as much fat and more than three times the amount of salt, depending on which brand of lasagne they bought. Some pizzas had seven times as much salt as others, and five times as much fat. A curry could have three and a half times the amount of saturates or more than four times the amount of salt per 100 g, depending on which chicken tikka meal was chosen.
	That may sound funny, but 30 per cent. of deaths from coronary heart disease and around one third of cancers are believed to be down to diet. When the FSA publishes the results of the full research project on UK nutrition signposting labelling schemes next year, the food industry must respond with simple, uniform nutritional labelling to enable people to choose healthy food.
	This Bill has the support of the British Medical Association, which has stated:
	"The British Medical Association has a long-term interest in the health of the public and believes that the increase in the frequency of obesity is a cause for great concern. While tackling obesity requires commitment to a multi-faceted approach, there is a particular need to change dietary behaviour. The BMA considers improved and consistent food labelling to be an important mechanism for enabling consumers to make informed dietary choices",
	and for that reason it welcomes this Bill.
	The British Heart Foundation says:
	"Poor diets are creating a massive burden of ill health in the UK, including by contributing to several key risk factors for the development of heart disease, such as obesity and high blood pressure. To help reverse this trend, we believe that people must be provided with clear information about the food which they eat in order to encourage them to make healthier choices.
	BHF therefore strongly supports the principle behind this debate. It is essential that all members of the food industry agree to abide by the recommendations of the Food Standards Agency on which single form of front of pack labelling should be adopted".
	Diabetes UK supports the intention of this Bill, saying:
	"We believe it is vital that a universal nutrition labelling scheme is introduced to enable consumers to make informed choices about their diet".
	Cancer Research UK says:
	"After not smoking, keeping a healthy weight is one of the best ways to reduce your risk of cancer."
	Researchers have estimated that more than 13,000 cases of cancer could be avoided every year if everyone maintained a healthy body weight. The plethora of signpost labelling schemes used by retailers and manufacturers inevitably results in consumer confusion. It is important that the labelling scheme that works best for consumers is adopted and championed across the food industry.
	In just the past week, 100 MPs have supported my early-day motion, which calls on food retailers and manufacturers to end the confusion caused by the proliferation of different schemes, and to commit to adopting whichever single labelling approach is found by the Food Standards Agency to perform best for consumers.
	The last word goes to James, aged 63, via the Royal National Institute of Blind People:
	"I've been trying to eat more healthily since my GP warned me about my high blood pressure. Even with my magnifier I find it difficult working out how much fat and sugar any product had. I wish they'd stop worrying about their branding and start worrying about me their customer."
	I ask the House to support the Bill.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Helen Southworth, Mr. Kevin Barron, Charlotte Atkins, Jim Dowd, Stephen Hesford, Christine Russell, David Taylor, Dr. Howard Stoate, Mrs. Janet Dean, Dr. Doug Naysmith, Mr. Paul Burstow and Mr. David Amess.

Food Labelling (Nutrition and Health)

Helen Southworth accordingly presented a Bill to require simple, uniform nutritional labelling on the front of packaged foods; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 14 November, and to be printed [Bill 157].

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Delegated Legislation Committees),

Local Government

That the draft Local Elections (Ordinary Day of Elections in 2009) Order 2008, which was laid before this House on 7th October, be approved. —[Ms Butler.]
	 Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day

Employment Bill  [Lords]

As amended in the Public Bill Committee, considered.

New Clause 1
	 — 
	Protection of those participating in lawful industrial action or a lawful strike

'(1) The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (c. 52) (in this section "the 1992 Act") is amended as follows.
	(2) For section 238A (participation in official industrial action) substitute—
	"238A Effect of industrial action on employment contract
	(1) Any termination of a contract of employment by an employer shall be unlawful and of no effect if the reason or one of the reasons was or is that the worker has participated, is participating or proposes to participate in lawful industrial action or a lawful strike; and in any proceedings, the termination shall be presumed to be by reason of that participation or proposed participation unless the employer proves the contrary.
	(2) Where in any proceedings a court finds a termination unlawful as a result of subsection (1), it may (in addition to making any other order)—
	(a) make a declaration as to the continuation of the contract of employment;
	(b) award damages in respect of any loss suffered by the worker by reason of the termination.
	(3) Where a worker's act or failure to act is a consequence of the worker's participation, or proposed participation, in lawful industrial action or a lawful strike, that act or failure to act is not actionable on any of the following grounds—
	(a) that it amounts to a breach of that worker's contract of employment, or to non-performance or partial performance of one or more terms of that worker's contract of employment;
	(b) that it amounts to the breach, non-performance or partial performance of any duty or obligation owed by the worker to any person; or
	(c) that it is directly or indirectly causative of the breach, non-performance or partial performance of any duty or obligation owed by another person.
	(4) For the purposes of this section, section 238AA and section 238AB, an employee participates in lawful industrial action or a lawful strike if he commits an act, or a series of acts, which he is induced to commit by an act which by virtue of section 219 is not actionable in tort.
	(5) In this section—
	(a) "court" includes an employment tribunal, and
	(b) "termination" includes a purported termination.
	238AA Unfair dismissal and the right not to suffer detriment
	(1) An employee who is dismissed shall be regarded for the purposes of Part X of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (c. 18) (unfair dismissal) as unfairly dismissed if the reason or one of the reasons for the dismissal is that the employee has participated, is participating or proposes to participate in lawful industrial action or a lawful strike.
	(2) A worker has the right not to be subjected to any detriment by any act, or deliberate failure to act, by his employer, where the reason (or one of the reasons) for the act or failure is that the worker has participated, is participating or proposes to participate in lawful industrial action or a lawful strike.
	(3) Subsection (2) does not apply where the worker is an employee and the detriment in question amounts to dismissal.
	(4) Nothing in this section prevents an employer, in relation to a worker who participates in lawful industrial action or a lawful strike, from—
	(a) withholding remuneration or benefits from the worker, so long as—
	(i) the amount withheld does not exceed that to which the worker would have been entitled had he not participated in industrial action or a strike,
	(ii) the withholding of the remuneration or benefits in question is permitted by the worker's contract of employment, and
	(iii) it is reasonable in all the circumstances to withhold the remuneration or benefits in question;
	(b) enforcing, to such extent as is reasonable in the circumstances, any restriction imposed by the worker's contract of employment concerning trade secrets or other confidential information.
	238AB Complaints to employment tribunals etc
	(1) A worker or former worker may present a complaint to an employment tribunal that he has been subjected to a detriment by his employer in contravention of section 238AA(2).
	(2) An employment tribunal shall not consider a complaint under subsection (1) unless it is presented—
	(a) before the end of the period of three months, beginning with the date of the act or failure to act (or the last in a series of similar acts or failures) to which the complaint relates, or
	(b) within such further period as the employment tribunal considers just and equitable in all the circumstances.
	(3) In proceedings on a complaint under section 238AA(2), it is for the employer to show the reason for the act or failure to which the complaint relates; and the act or omission shall be presumed to be by reason that the worker had participated, was participating or proposed to participate in lawful industrial action or a lawful strike unless the employer proves the contrary.
	(4) Where an employment tribunal finds that a complaint presented to it under subsection (1) is well founded, it shall take such of the following steps as it considers just and equitable—
	(a) make a declaration as to the rights of the complainant in relation to the matters to which the complaint relates;
	(b) order the employer to pay such compensation to the complainant as it considers just and equitable having regard to all the circumstances, including the detriment to which the worker was subjected and any loss suffered by the worker in consequence of the act or omission to which the complaint relates; and for the avoidance of doubt, compensation may be awarded in respect of injury to feelings whether or not awarded under any other head.
	(5) In proceedings on a complaint of unfair dismissal under section 238AA(1), the dismissal shall be presumed to be by reason that the worker had participated, was participating or proposed to participate in lawful industrial action or a lawful strike, unless the employer proves the contrary."
	(3) In section 239 (supplementary provisions relating to unfair dismissal) subsection (4) ceases to have effect.
	(4) The Employment Rights Act 1996 (in this Act, "the 1996 Act") is amended as follows.
	(5) After section 113 (reinstatement and re-engagement orders) insert the following section—
	"113A Automatic reinstatement
	Where an employment tribunal finds that an employee has been unfairly dismissed in circumstances to which section 238AA(1) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 applies, and the complainant wishes to be reinstated, the tribunal shall make—
	(a) an order for reinstatement, or
	(b) an order for re-engagement on such terms as the parties may agree or as the tribunal (having regard to any advice received from ACAS) shall order".
	(6) In section 117 (enforcement of order and compensation) after subsection (2) insert the following subsection—
	"(2A) In relation to an order made pursuant to section 113A, the amount of compensation shall be such as the tribunal thinks just and equitable in all the circumstances having regard, in particular, to the nature of the infringement of the employee's right to be reinstated or re-engaged in pursuance of the order, and to any loss suffered by the employee in consequence of the non-compliance; and for the avoidance of doubt, compensation may be awarded in respect of injury to feelings whether or not it is awarded under any other head."
	(7) In section 117 after subsection (8) insert the following subsection—
	"(9) Any order for reinstatement or re-engagement made pursuant to section 113A may be enforced as if it were an order made by the High Court."
	(8) In section 124 (limit of compensatory award etc)—
	(a) after "section 117(1) and (2)" insert "or (2A)";
	(b) for "section 115(2)(d)" substitute "section 115(2)(d), section 117(2A)".
	(9) In section 128(1)(b) (interim relief pending determination of complaint) after "Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992" insert "or section 238AA(1) of that Act".
	(10) In section 129(1) (procedure on hearing of application and making of order) after "Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992" insert "or section 238AA(1) of that Act".'.— [John McDonnell.]
	 Brought up, and read the First time.

John McDonnell: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: new clause 2— Employer's duties in relation to industrial action ballots—
	"The following section is inserted after section 226C of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992—
	"226D Employer's duties in relation to industrial action ballots
	(1) It is the duty of an employer reasonably to co-operate generally, in connection with a ballot conducted or proposed for the purposes of section 226, with the trade union (or unions) and the person appointed to conduct the ballot.
	(2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), it is the duty of an employer to supply to a trade union in good time information reasonably requested by the trade union for the purposes of establishing the names, addresses, categories and workplaces of those members whom it wishes to ballot for the purposes of section 226.".'.
	New clause 3— Agency labour replacing those taking lawful industrial action—
	"In the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations 2003 (S.I. 2003/3319), after regulation 7 (restriction on providing work-seekers in industrial disputes) insert the following regulation—
	 "Restriction on hirers in industrial disputes
	7A (1) A person shall not hire a work-seeker to perform—
	(a) the duties normally performed by a worker who is taking part, or intends to or is about to take part, in a lawful strike or other lawful industrial action, and in respect of whom notice of a strike or other industrial action has been given by a trade union ("the first worker"), or
	(b) the duties normally performed by any other worker employed by the hirer and who is assigned by the hirer to perform duties normally performed by the first worker (whether or not the employer is contractually entitled to require the other worker to perform those duties).
	(2) Where a person seeks to become the hirer of a work-seeker wholly or partly by reason of (or of the prospect of) a strike or other industrial action, that person shall, before being supplied with a work-seeker by an employment business, inform the employment business of that fact.
	(3) Paragraphs (1) and (2) shall not apply if, in relation to the first worker, the strike action or other industrial action in question is an unofficial strike or other unofficial industrial action for the purposes of section 237 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
	(4) In this regulation and in regulation 7, "employment business" includes an agency.".'.

John McDonnell: This is now a time-limited debate, and I am anxious to ensure that we deal with all the important issues scheduled for debate today, so I shall try to be as brief as possible. I shall speak about new clauses 1, 2 and 3, but I shall seek a ballot—pardon the pun; I meant a Division—on new clause 2, on balloting procedure, at the appropriate time. I shall be advised by you on that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek to press it to a Division following consultation with hon. Members and a range of trade unions, who feel that new clause 2 is the most important new clause in the batch before us. It relates to the largest impediment to their activities and to good industrial relations.
	This is my third attempt to debate the new clause. My first two attempts were on clauses in the Trade Union Rights and Freedoms Bill, but both times the debate was talked out. I am grateful for the advice and assistance of the Clerk to the Committee, which helped us to ensure that the new clauses were in order, and could be selected today. I also pay tribute to the Institute of Employment Rights for its tenacious pursuit of trade union rights, and its advice and assistance. In particular, I pay tribute to Carolyn Jones, John Hendy QC, and Professor Keith Ewing. I also pay tribute to the late Brian Bercusson. Together, as a team, they have provided support throughout the last two decades in trying to seek trade union reform and establish basic trade union rights once again in this country. May I also pay tribute to the many trade unionists who have campaigned on these issues over the years and lobbied Parliaments? They include many rank and file trade unionists, general secretaries and others: we all owe them a debt of gratitude for campaigning for basic trade union rights in this country.
	The three new clauses are extremely moderate and could hardly be described as burdensome reforms in vital areas of trade union rights. They are supported by every trade union affiliated to the TUC, they are unanimously supported by the TUC general council and they have been unanimously supported by the TUC for at least three years. My concern is that they are more important now than before. As the country moves into a recession, there is always a danger that unscrupulous employers will use the excuse or the smokescreen of recession to seek to undermine wages and conditions under which workers are employed and even to shed labour without due regard to appropriate procedures and processes. Workers will look to their trade unions for protection, and, inevitably, there will be disputes, but people will look also to the Government to provide security and protection from exploitation, loss of employment and unfair treatment by ensuring that appropriate rights and protections are on the statute book. The three new clauses go some limited way in providing reassurance that there is legal redress against unfair treatment and victimisation, and that trade unions can operate effectively in representing their members and in implementing their members' wishes.
	The aim of new clause 1 is to provide protection from dismissal or detriment for workers taking industrial action. I think that Members in all parts of the House agree that the right to take industrial action is a fundamental right. It is guaranteed by international treaties and conventions: the International Labour Organisation conventions of 1987 and 1998; the Council of Europe's European social charter and article 11 of the European convention on human rights and fundamental freedoms; and article 8.1(d) of the United Nations international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights. The United Kingdom's law on trade unions—in particular, the denial of the right to strike and to take industrial action—has been held to be in breach of those international treaties by the decisions of their supervisory bodies over many years. The new clauses would not go as far as to try to incorporate or enact the international statutes in UK legislation: I wish they could. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris), who was described earlier as a Fabian, will appreciate the approach of gradually improving legislation, and the moderate approach that I generally take to such matters. The aim is to protect workers taking industrial action from being sued, sacked or otherwise penalised by an employer.
	New clause 1 would provide that dismissals in anticipation of, during or after lawful industrial action would be void and ineffective, unless the employer could show that the reason for the dismissal was not connected to the industrial action.

Nick Palmer: I have a lot of sympathy for my hon. Friend's new clauses, and I am inclined to vote for the one on which he will call a Division, but, on the point that he just made, I am concerned that we would be asking the employer to prove a negative—that the interest in striking was not the reason for the proposed dismissal. I wonder whether it would not set an impossibly high hurdle, whereby someone who was threatened with dismissal could threaten to strike to invoke the new clause.

John McDonnell: In normal dismissal cases, the employer would need to bring forward evidence that demonstrated the grounds for the dismissal. We seek that balance—a demonstration of the legitimacy of dismissal—in this case, so that there are legitimate grounds, other than the taking of industrial action, that the employer can demonstrate. I understand my hon. Friend's concerns, but, in practical terms, for those of us who have been trade unionists and defended people at industrial tribunals, the emphasis is on the employer to bring evidence of why the dismissal took place. In such instances, the issue is about proving not a negative but the action, other than the relationship to industrial action, that demonstrates the grounds for dismissal.

Nick Palmer: The new clause does, however, say that
	"if...one of the reasons was...industrial action",
	so the employer could demonstrate a perfectly valid reason for dismissal, but, if he was unable to prove that he was not also influenced by the threat of industrial action, he would not be able to proceed.

John McDonnell: The employer would have to demonstrate that its decision to dismiss on other grounds had not been contaminated by the fact that industrial action was taking place.

Andrew Dismore: As my hon. Friend knows, I am one of the signatories to new clause 1. What it proposes is modest. Given how it is phrased, it would not in the 1980s have prevented the dismissal of miners who had been criminally convicted for picketing and so forth. Presumably, such workers would still be dismissed even if the new clause were agreed to. That is why I think it is so modest.

John McDonnell: All this is destroying my revolutionary credentials. Let me be clear: we are trying to reach a consensus with the Government. For five years, we have consulted every trade union, through the TUC, on our proposals. There was even a resolution at the Labour party conference proposing similar trade union reforms.  [Interruption.] The resolution did get through; there was a majority at the Labour party conference, although I accept that it followed the Gate Gourmet dispute and that it was an emotional period.
	My proposal provides for minimal protection, not even to the level of international law, and it is practical. It is a pragmatic approach to ensuring that people cannot be dismissed during industrial disputes.

Brian Binley: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us what assessment he has made of the additional tribunal cases that might result from his new clause? Has he assessed how many such cases might be vexatious and how much more cost they would impose on British industry and commerce generally?

John McDonnell: I shall come on to the percentages of current cases; at present, they are minuscule, which demonstrates that there is inadequate protection for workers in respect of reinstatement. I shall say more about that point later, and the hon. Gentleman can then come back at me if he wishes.
	If a dismissal takes place, the new clause would make it automatically unfair. For employers, that will act as a powerful disincentive to taking on replacement staff and making strikers redundant. Interim relief would be available in all unfair dismissal claims relating to lawful industrial action and employees who had been unfairly dismissed would be entitled to automatic reinstatement if they requested it. The same principle would apply to the imposition of a detriment on the worker by the employer. The employer would have to show that the reason was not the worker's participation or proposed participation in lawful industrial action. However, let me be clear that that would not invalidate the normal process of withholding remuneration and benefits, limited to those that the employee would have received had he or she not taken industrial action.
	Let me explain what the new clause means and what has motivated it. Most hon. Members are aware of the case of Friction Dynamics, which demonstrates that a group of workers can take lawful strike action—they went through a proper ballot and sent out the due notices—yet be sacked. Two years later, a tribunal found that they had been unfairly dismissed. But what happened? What redress did they then have? Their jobs were gone. They could not gain reinstatement orders or even compensation because the employer company had gone into liquidation. Actually, the real owner was trading at the same factory under a differently named company, and the strikers' jobs had been filled by others. That was grotesquely unfair, and that example—one of the starkest—shocked the House and the Labour trade union movement into action.

Hywel Williams: Friction Dynamics was located in my constituency. Seven years on, the workers involved have had no compensation whatever. To add to the iniquity of the situation, their then employer has now set up in another town with another variation on the Friction Dynamics-Celtic Friction name. That is disgraceful.

John McDonnell: That demonstrates how the law currently fails to protect workers undertaking lawful industrial action, and fails to provide them with any prompt and effective form of redress. Friction Dynamics was the starkest example, but many others can be used. That demonstrates that the law is grotesquely unfair.
	In other countries, when industrial action takes place the contract of employment is suspended, not broken. In the past, the Government's response to these proposals has been to argue that during a lawful strike, protection against dismissal has been provided for up to 12 weeks, but in practice that has proved to be illusory. The right to claim unfair dismissal and receive compensation when sacked does not amount to protection against dismissal.
	In response to the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Binley), the last figures that I have obtained, which are admittedly 18 months out of date but show a trend, show that reinstatement was awarded in only 0.2 per cent. of tribunal cases where claims went to a hearing. That is only 0.4 per cent. of all unfair dismissal claims. Even where an employer is ordered to reinstate, they are free not to comply, subject to penalties of compensation. There are now numerous cases where it is very difficult to gain reinstatement, and even where that happens employers flagrantly refuse to comply. I understand the hon. Gentleman's point with regard to burdens on business, but I do not believe that these proposals would be burdensome, and that has not been argued in the discussions that have taken place within Government. I think that he will understand that there is an issue of unfairness and equity if we can reach a situation whereby only 0.2 per cent. of tribunal cases result in reinstatements when so many are demanded.

Andrew Pelling: The hon. Gentleman highlights the weaknesses in the current legal situation. His figures are from 18 months ago. Does he think that there might be an additional argument in favour of these proposals in the context of the changed financial environment, where some employers might be further tempted to exploit those weaknesses?

John McDonnell: The hon. Gentleman, who came into the debate slightly late, makes a valid point that I made in my introduction. People require greater protection as we enter a recession. They will be looking to their trade unions for protection, but they will be looking to Government to ensure that the legislation is in place to provide that protection.

Rob Marris: Does my hon. Friend agree that, as regards burdens on business, the state of UK law arguably leads to unfair competition by our capitalists, because most of the labour jurisdictions in which other capitalists operate, in western Europe and in most of North America, have decent, enforceable rules about reinstatement?

John McDonnell: That is a good point. When Tony Woodley, who was general secretary of the T&G and is now joint general secretary of Unite, was the midlands organiser for the car industry, he consistently argued how much easier it was to sack workers in Britain, and therefore how much easier it was to relocate to other parts of Europe. The supervisory body of the United Nations international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights has told the Government on at least two occasions that in order to conform to their ratified obligations they need to protect the right to strike and to ensure that the dismissal of those on lawful strike is prevented and that any such dismissal must be rendered void and ineffective. The new clause would enable a form of compliance with this element of the Government's obligations and provide some protection from dismissal for workers taking lawful industrial action—those who, before taking industrial action, have complied with every procedure that the Government have obliged them to with regard to balloting, notices and so on.
	That brings me on to new clause 2 and balloting. The new clause attempts to resolve the ongoing administrative problems of balloting procedures for industrial action. Let us be clear about this: under the existing procedures, trade unions must, before conducting lawful industrial action, comply with extensive rules on notices and ballots. Anybody who has had practical experience of that process can demonstrate the difficulties of consciously complying with the law. It places a heavy administrative burden and costs on the unions.

Andrew Dismore: As my hon. Friend knows, I used to practise in this area of law, and once those rules were introduced, it became a battle of lawyers rather than a battle of unions and employers. Time after time, I was asked to check balloting processes, and it was absolutely frustrating to find that employers would do all that they could to frustrate the ballot but would immediately rush off to court if one of the t's was not crossed. I cannot understand why, of all my hon. Friend's new clauses, the Government do no agree to this one, which I have backed. All it does is level the playing field. If an employer wants a ballot to be held, let us expect him to co-operate by giving the names and addresses of those to be balloted. What is wrong with that?

John McDonnell: Various Members will have their own experiences of this situation, but for most trade unionists, let alone lawyers, it is an incredibly onerous task to comply with the law in question. It is costly, overcomplicated and, to be frank, it provides a battleground and a fair income—with the greatest respect to my hon. Friend—for lawyers.  [Interruption.]

Andrew MacKinlay: The Minister wants my hon. Friend to give way.

John McDonnell: I thought that it was a Government acceptance—a message from the front.
	In practice, this situation sours industrial relations. It turns the industrial relations climate into one of hostility rather than one of negotiation.

Kate Hoey: My hon. Friend was talking about the souring of relations. Does he remember the national dispute last year involving the Communication Workers Union and the Royal Mail? After going through all the hoops by getting all workers in all categories put forward, the Royal Mail spent a huge amount of our money at the last minute on going to court. Is that not nonsense? In his discussions with the Minister, did the Minister give any real reason why the new clause cannot be accepted ?

John McDonnell: No; I hope that the Minister will give us the reason why he can accept it. I cannot see any reason why it should be rejected.
	We all have examples—I have mine—but the Royal Mail is a classic one. All the information was provided, but the totals of each grade of staff were not added up. All that was needed was a calculator, but on that basis an injunction was awarded to prevent the dispute. As my hon. Friend said, that was costly, and it soured relations between the union and management for a period.
	The Government recognised the problem, and they legislated in 1999 and 2004 to tackle the issue. They understood that the procedures undermined the democratic wishes of trade union members by preventing their implementation. I was pleased that the Government recognised that and introduced reforms. Experience has since shown that the reforms were not successful; we still have the same problems. The current laws require unions to provide the employer with exact numbers of members, categories of workers and the workplaces of those to be balloted, but still allow lawyers to apply for injunctions based on small technical errors, even where they have no effect on the outcome of the ballot. That cannot be just, and it cannot be right. The use of injunctions by lawyers is frustrating and undemocratic, especially when the error complained about could have no impact on the final result. It is extremely difficult in modern work life to keep trace of meticulous records of all members in a modern work force.

Stephen Crabb: Hang on a moment. Elsewhere in the Bill trade unions are being given the right to discriminate against their membership in the name of defining what their membership should be, as membership organisations, but here is the hon. Gentleman arguing as part of the package he wants that unions should not have to keep meticulous records of who their members are. That does not hang together very well.

John McDonnell: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point, but I am trying to explain the difficulties that exist. I am not trying to argue that unions should not keep meticulous records—they will do their best. New clause 2 seeks to gain employers' co-operation in statute to enable that to happen.

Andrew Dismore: A good example of my hon. Friend's point is that, when people change their address, they almost always notify their employer, but nearly always forget to tell their trade union. In these days of postal ballots, how on earth is the union to get the ballot papers to the members if they do not register their addresses? With the best will in the world, the employer knows the employees' addresses far better than the union, even if the union knows the names of the members, which it does.

John McDonnell: I shall deal with the detail of new clause 2 shortly, but it seeks to ensure co-operation between the union and the employer and vice versa—that is all.
	Let us consider the difficulties in the modern workplace. First, flexible work patterns have increased among the modern work force. In some industries, workers do not have a regular workplace—they often work from a distance or move between different work sites. Privatisation, out-sourcing and offshoring individual contracts in company departments have exacerbated the trend. Payment of union subscription is often made by direct debit and people do not notify the union of change of employment or workplace. Consequently, employers issue injunctions for minor technical issues, disputes escalate and the overall industrial relations climate deteriorates.
	Let me give some examples of the farcical nature of the problems that are experienced. The Communication Workers Union and Royal Mail have already been mentioned. The Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians—the building workers' union—finds it virtually impossible to comply with the law because so many of its members are on so many different sites that it is cost-ineffective even to try to ballot them. It is difficult to trace them at any one time.
	The latest example involves Unite and the bus strike in London. Unite balloted its bus worker members on a wages matter. Bus drivers were being paid differently for doing the same job—even on the same route—because they were employed by different companies under the privatised system. There was 90 per cent. support for industrial action and the results were provided to the general secretary. As some hon. Members know, the procedure in Unite is that the general secretary receives the results, discussions take place with the national executive committee, the matter is passed on to the relevant region and it is decided whether to proceed with the action. That is perfectly appropriate and exhaustively democratic. However, because the process took 36 hours, Unite was injuncted and the industrial action could not go ahead. We are now told that the union may be threatened with damages for some action that took place.

Andrew Miller: Is not that the core of the problem? My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) is the only lawyer I know who has driven a bus. The judge who made the decision had no practical understanding of the workings of a trade union or of running a bus company. If the matter had been left to the bus company and the trade unions in the spirit of new clause 2, the problem would not have arisen.

John McDonnell: The problem is that the current system encourages the rush to litigation. It undermines normal industrial relations as we have experienced them in the past and frustrates individual trade members, who feel that their internal democracy is being undermined. It also frustrates several managers on the ground, whose wishes have been overridden as a result of senior management decisions, after conferring with lawyers, to resort to legal action.
	The National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers had a similar case. It balloted employees of Southeastern Trains and the result was a 72 per cent. majority in support of strike action. Three days before the action was due to commence, Southeastern Trains announced that it sought an injunction against the union on the basis that the ballot was invalid because the union had not included four drivers. The union then balloted those four drivers, but it was argued that that was too late. Four votes either way would have made no difference whatever to the decision to undertake industrial action, but that action was prevented, as was, in my view, the speeding up of negotiations to resolve the dispute. There is example after example of where the Government's genuine wish to reform the balloting procedures and enable us to return to a decent industrial relations climate and re-establish basic trade union rights in this country have been frustrated because we did not go far enough in 1999 or 2004.

Andrew Dismore: My hon. Friend is being very generous in giving way. It should be emphasised that when a ballot is challenged in the courts and an injunction is granted, that is not the end of the story. The union will rerun the ballot, hoping to dot the i's and cross the t's, and inevitably the vote in favour of industrial action will increase dramatically, hardening attitudes on both sides and making the dispute that much harder to resolve in the long run.

John McDonnell: I do not know of any incident where the decision of a ballot has been reversed after a subsequent ballot. We have trawled as many cases as we can, looking for examples of where the provisions have been nefariously implemented and trying to get an honest appraisal of how the law is being implemented.
	New clause 2 is an extremely reasonable and relatively minor amendment. It is a tidying-up amendment that would place a duty on employers to co-operate with the unions when a ballot is held. What would that mean? Employers would be required to supply information to assist the union in complying with the notice and balloting requirements. In particular, employers would be expected to provide unions with information on
	"names, addresses, categories and workplaces of those members whom"
	they plan to ballot. That would assist the union in complying with its legal requirements, but not diminish the employer's entitlements. The employer would have only to respond to reasonable requests. We introduced similar duties in the statutory recognition procedures, which we debated in the House in 2004. New clause 2 goes no further than that, making a simple request for co-operation from the employer, which must be undertaken in a reasonable manner.

David Drew: I hear exactly what my hon. Friend is saying and I totally support him. Does he agree that there is a marked difference between the private and public sectors? My experience of trade unions in the public sector is that employers would never dream of not realising the type of information that he has described. That is sometimes not the case, but in many cases good relations have been built up over a long period. However, there are still significant problems in the private sector. We need parity, equality and fairness.

John McDonnell: That description might have applied 10 or 15 years ago, but I am not sure that it does now. For instance, privatisation, outsourcing, contracting out and the use of agencies rather than departments has undermined the position. Those agencies that remain in the public sector, but which are undertaking work that would have been mainstreamed within a department, now operate virtually as private contractors. There was a difference in the past, but there is an increasingly smaller difference now.

Ian McCartney: My hon. Friend is being somewhat unkind about the history of such matters. As someone who dealt with the issue in 1999, I can say that the determining factor is not whether an employer is in the public or private sector, but the relationship at the point that the dispute breaks out and industrial action becomes possible. It is irrelevant whether the employer is in the public or private sector. The consequences are quite devastating, and the real issue is not the right of trade unions as bodies, but maximising the participation of the work force in a decision that might lead to them withdrawing their labour, with all the consequences that my hon. Friend has mentioned.

John McDonnell: Any laws that undermine union members' democratic participation in and control of that union need to be reformed. That is what our amendments are all about. I agree with my right hon. Friend. There can be poor employers in the public and private sectors. The differences have now gone and complications are experienced just as much in the public sector, as units have been broken down and forms of flexible working have been introduced, even right down to hot-desking, all of which make it difficult to maintain records of membership.

Tony Lloyd: On the public-private issue, is my hon. Friend aware that, when Unison has to conduct a ballot in schools, it now has to write to 25,000 schools? Among the 25,000, it knows that 10,000 now have a degree of self-management, and that not all those schools are well disposed towards trade unionism. However, the union does not know which other schools might have changed their status and, as a belt and braces measure, it has to contact all of them. This involves massive expense and a great deal of uncertainty for those involved. It makes no difference to the outcome of the ballot, because a ballot has never been lost on that basis, but it does increase resource costs to union members.

John McDonnell: The fact that there is now such a variety of public institutions complicates matters—do not get me going on academies.

Katy Clark: We have been talking about the complicated nature of the changes taking place in the workplace, in the public and private sectors. I am sure that my hon. Friend will be aware that individual workers are often not informed of changes—for example, changes involving the identity of the employer, complex corporate changes and changes to job categories. That is precisely the kind of information that the courts require be provided. Does he agree that the employer is often best placed to have the most accurate information, and that it is therefore reasonable to require them to provide it to the trade union, to enable the trade union to comply with the law?

John McDonnell: The new clause is simply seeking to ensure the co-operation of the employers who hold that information, and it would be in their long-term interests to comply with such a provision.
	I apologise for having dealt rather flippantly with the point on education made by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Tony Lloyd). He provided a very good example of an area that contains an enormous range of establishments, resulting in balloting incurring very high costs. The Electoral Reform Society and other organisations must be making a fortune out of that. I must declare an interest at this point, because my wife works for the society, but that is another thing altogether.
	It would be relatively easy for individual schools to supply information to a union, and for co-operation to be established in that way. That is all that new clause 1 seeks to achieve. It seeks to ensure that employers are engaged in assisting unions to keep their records up to date, which would enable proper democratic ballots to take place. My hon. Friend mentioned Unison, and that is a good example. One of the worst things that can happen is for someone not to receive their ballot papers. They feel aggrieved at having been unable to participate in the decision and, if industrial action does take place, they feel that they have not been party to that final decision.

Rob Marris: May I underline just how modest my hon. Friend's proposal is? The balloting procedures exist so that, if a union goes through them properly, it will not have damages awarded against it for the tort of inducing a breach of contract. A more radical proposal—which I suspect my hon. Friend might, at some point, consider—would be to abolish the tort of inducing a breach of contract. If we did that, we would not need this panoply of balloting procedures.

John McDonnell: We would then be on a par with European law, because the right to strike is in place in most European constitutions. As my hon. Friend knows, the history of this goes back to Taff Vale in 1906, when we gained impunity against actions for tort when industrial action was taking place. The interesting thing is, however, that we now have fewer trade union rights in this country than we had in 1906. After 11 years of a Labour Government, I congratulate them on some of the improvements that have been made, and I am hoping that tonight we will be able to move that bit further towards re-establishing some fundamental rights for trade unionists.
	New clause 3 deals with agencies, and seeks to address the continuing problem of the use of agency workers by an employer to replace striking workers during an industrial dispute. I congratulate the Government on seeking to address that issue in 2003, but certain anomalies remain as a result of problems with the law. The new clause seeks to tidy up the Government's original proposals. I should like to explain that in a little more detail.
	In 2003, the Government introduced the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations 2003. The regulations bar the use of replacement labour to carry out the duties normally performed by a worker undertaking lawful industrial action or lawful strike action. They also bar the replacement of a worker who has been assigned to do the work normally performed by a worker undertaking lawful industrial action or lawful strike action. There are, however, three fundamental weaknesses in the regulations that need attention.
	First, the regulations distinguish between an employment agency and an employment business. An employment agency introduces workers to hirers for direct employment by the hirer, and it can include temporary contracts. An employment business, on the other hand, supplies temporary and casual workers to third-party hirers. The clause barring the provision of replacement labour during lawful strikes applies only to those hired through employment businesses. If an employer hires labour through an agency rather than a business, they can avoid liability for engaging casual labour during lawful strikes. The amending provision would remove that anomaly. Secondly, the bar on supplying replacement labour applies only if the supplier knows that the worker is replacing one taking industrial action, so the onus is on the supplier of the labour to know whether industrial action has taken place. The amendment would clarify the regulations to impose a duty on the hirer—the employer—to inform the supplier about industrial action, and makes it unlawful for the hirer to hire replacement workers to carry out work usually done by workers who are lawfully engaged in industrial action. It closes that loophole; it is a tidying-up provision.
	Thirdly, current regulations relate to replacement labour being employed during periods of official industrial action. However, the legislation has proved ineffective in that it allows employers to hire labour just prior to industrial action, thereby letting bad employers avoid the intent of the legislation. The amending provision would ensure that replacement labour could not be used to do the work of those taking part or intending to take part in a lawful strike.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) provided a good example earlier when she mentioned the Communication Workers Union dispute at Royal Mail. Hon. Members will recall that the CWU took industrial action in 2007 when Royal Mail was repeatedly challenged about the recruitment of casual labour during the dispute. The union referred to the restrictions in the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations 2003, claiming that in Bristol alone the use of casual staff increased from 12 immediately prior to the dispute to more than 250 during the dispute. The employer, the Royal Mail, insisted that it was acting in accordance with the law. So confident was it in its ability to circumvent the intention of the legislation that it established a number of operations at various sites across the country to do the work of the striking workers, using casual labour. It did so by utilising the loopholes in the Government's legislation. The use of such tactics undermined the staff's decision to go on strike and demonstrated the failure of the regulations to prevent employers' abuses, which the Government had sought to legislate against. It soured industrial relations in the Royal Mail for a long period to come.

Gwyn Prosser: May I provide my hon. Friend with a more up-to-date example, in that a dispute is brewing in the port of Dover? About 200 of the work force are about to be laid off or hived off to the private sector, and we heard yesterday that Dover harbour board is considering taking in Gurkhas to fill the gap. Is that not precisely the sort of loophole that we need to close to stop that sort of thing happening again?

John McDonnell: I believe that the Government legislated with good intent to close that loophole in 2003. Let us be frank about it: scab labour was being used to undermine a legitimate dispute. The Government thought that they had seriously resolved the problem. Since 2003, however, we have seen so many examples of where employers can, with appropriate legal advice, ride a coach and horses through the legislation. That shows why we need the new clauses.

Kate Hoey: I want to add to my hon. Friend's point about the bitterness that has been caused in the unions. The Communication Workers Union does things properly and has done so for many years, and its members serve the public day in, day out. I know how much bitterness has been left in areas such as my Nine Elms and other parts of London as a result of what happened in that dispute. It has been particularly damaging and it shows precisely why the Government should accept the new clause. Otherwise, long-term damage will be done to the relationship between trade unions and the public.

John McDonnell: I could not have said it more eloquently myself. I would add that abuse of the system by attempts to outflank the regulations also provokes unlawful wildcat action—understandably, as people get so angry when other workers are brought in to take their jobs and undermine their work and conditions. Usually, as we all know, people are paid pretty exploitative wage levels.
	If the Government cannot accept the new clause, I hope that they will accept that there is an issue to be addressed and produce some proposals within a limited timetable. It was the Government themselves who sought to legislate to avoid the problem in 2003.

Andrew Dismore: As my hon. Friend knows, I have signed up to his new clauses. If the Government are not minded to accept them, however, does he agree that since the previous reform was brought about through regulations, the Government could quickly produce amendments to those regulations, which could then be passed relatively quickly if they thought it desirable?

John McDonnell: It is my view that the provisions are a tidying-up exercise, closing loopholes in legislation. It would be reasonable for the Minister to announce some consultation on appropriate delegated legislation that could deal with the problem. That would be entirely within the spirit and conform to the principle of the Government's intentions in 2003.
	In this difficult economic period, we all hope that we can protect people in their jobs, secure their employment and, above all else, prevent exploitation, victimisation and unfair treatment. The three new clauses will go some way towards providing limited protection in the more difficult economic environment in which we all now operate.
	I hope that the Government will think seriously about balloting procedures, so I will want to test the will of the House on new clause 2. On new clauses 1 and 3, I would welcome a statement from the Minister that there are issues to be addressed and that the Government will look into how to address them, perhaps by consulting hon. Members, trade unions and employers to see how best to move forward and ensure a good industrial relations climate in the coming period. At the very least, we should attempt to ensure fairness and prevent unequal and unfair treatment.

Jonathan Djanogly: The Bill has wound its way between our two Houses for some time now—I believe since 7 December last year—with more or less agreement between the various parties on its contents, albeit with a difference of emphasis. We feel that the Bill is also a lost opportunity in failing to relieve the regulatory burden on business in respect of employment. As to these pro-union new clauses, the mood changes somewhat, as we totally oppose them. Here the true face and belief of the hard left of the Labour party is exposed and it is not a pretty sight for business.
	The starting point of all modern industrial relations law is—and has been for well over 100 years—that industrial action is unlawful unless protected. In effect, participants in authorised industrial action have protections against being sued, making industrial action lawful. As such, the new clauses would represent the most fundamental change to industrial relations law for a century and could catastrophically unbalance industrial relations in the UK, empowering trade unions to bring our economy to its knees.
	Section 238A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 was inserted by the Employment Relations Act 1999. As it currently stands, the section provides protection to a striking employee within a framework. There is no sense that the employee is to be considered unfairly dismissed through an arbitrary action in statute. The new clause would allow striking employees to hold companies to ransom. It would serve as a brake on commercial enterprise and return us to the dark days of the 1970s—three-day weeks and perpetual strike action.

Ian Stewart: The hon. Gentleman clearly does not understand industrial relations or the law. What he refers to was originally set up to ensure that when employers face a ballot for industrial action, they have good-quality information. It runs side by side with provisions such as cooling-off periods, which were introduced so that the employer and the trade unions could negotiate to try to resolve the problem and the ballot would not need to be put into action. He is wrong to tell the House that the problem is striking employees. They do not strike until after all the law on balloting has been implemented. He is wrong.

Jonathan Djanogly: I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman says. Indeed, the Bill is reforming the law in relation to ACAS, and we have for the most part supported the provisions on that. However, with this new clause we are staring down the barrel of a return to the old nasty days. Given that 90 per cent. of the Labour party's funding comes from the very trade unions that the new clause would empower, perhaps Labour Members would welcome such a change—or they are at least unable to prevent their arms from being twisted by their party's sponsors.
	The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) needs to put the new clause in context. For starters, will he say what unions have been promoting it? Does it form part of the Warwick II agenda, for instance?

John McDonnell: I shall send the hon. Gentleman a copy of my speech when it appears in  Hansard. I referred early on to the support of every trade union affiliated to the TUC and said that the new clauses were unanimously carried by the TUC and its general council.

Jonathan Djanogly: It is nice to hear the hon. Gentleman make clear the support of his party's paymasters.

Rob Marris: I rise to declare my interest as a long-term member of Unite and a member of the GMB. Will the hon. Gentleman care to declare his interest, as registered, as a partner in a large law firm, SJ Berwin?

Jonathan Djanogly: My interest is clearly stated in the Register of Members' Interests. It forms no part of the debate because a law firm would act for either party in a dispute.
	What has happened—hon. Members may agree with this—is that the Government have presided over a period of greed and arrogance on economic matters. The Labour Government have come to represent the zenith of boom and bust. They have taken the nation to the brink of recession. Businesses across the UK now face difficult decisions as a result. Jobs will be lost and businesses may fold. The last thing the Government should do is hand the power to self-interested employee groups to hold companies to ransom. The Government would be wrong to do anything that more than simply dismisses the new clause. If they do not, it would add yet further weight to the rumours that the "beer and sandwich" culture of the 1970s has worked its way back into Downing street.

David Drew: I understand that Mr. Richard Balfe has been talking to trade unions on behalf of the Conservative party. I would be interested to hear whether he has delivered the same message as the hon. Gentleman is setting out, because I am not sure how long those discussions would have lasted had Mr. Balfe given that speech to the trade unions. What have those discussions been about?

Jonathan Djanogly: The purpose of the debate is not to go through our private discussions with trade unions. However, we are more than happy to talk to trade unions. We have been doing that and will continue to do so because we want to have a smooth industrial relations policy when we get back into power. That does not mean that we will go to the extremes set out in the new clauses.

Ian Stewart: If the Opposition have been talking to the trade unions, have the trade unions never explained why they want the new clause?

Jonathan Djanogly: The trade unions have not personally approached me to discuss the new clause, but it seems as though they have approached a lot of Labour Members.
	Let me mention the worst aspects of the new clause from the Conservatives' point of view. It would be virtually impossible to dismiss a worker conducting industrial action under proposed new section 238A(1) and (2). Currently, employers can only fairly dismiss workers who are conducting union-approved industrial action where, first, there has been no proper ballot; secondly, they have made reasonable steps to resolve their trade dispute; thirdly, they dismiss every striking worker; and fourthly, they do not re-engage any of them within a three-month period. Although that scenario is extremely rare, the provisions are vital. They ensure that an employer can ultimately get on with business when striking workers are making unreasonable demands. In our view, the provisions clearly already provide reasonable protection to those who are conducting authorised action.
	Industrial action short of a strike would be legalised by proposed new section 238A(3) and (4). The effective legalisation of action short of a strike, such as work-to-rule or a sit-in, would empower unions in a way not seen since the 1970s, when work-to-rule formed part of the action taken by unions intent on crippling the economy. Unbelievably, unions would no longer be liable for the consequences of their actions under the new clause. That is of fundamental importance. Under the current law, injunctions can be granted against trade unions by the courts and damages awarded where actions that they have endorsed are viewed as unjustified or disproportionately damaging to the employer. That provides an important check and balance against inappropriate behaviour and is mirrored by a substantial body of law restricting an employer's conduct in a trade dispute. By removing liability on a worker engaged in industrial action, the unions would no longer be liable either. That would fundamentally unbalance industrial relations in our country.

Parmjit Dhanda: Does the hon. Gentleman not in any way consider that what he has just said could change the mood of the relationship between employers and employees and might encourage more people to work to rule rather than take the risk of strike action?

Jonathan Djanogly: I simply disagree. The hon. Gentleman is not right.
	Proposed new section 238AA(2) and (4) would mean that staff are entitled to full pay when conducting industrial action, removing any disincentive from taking such action. Proposed new section 113A to the Employment Rights Act 1996 would make it impossible to make redundancies wherever industrial action occurs, even if the whole business would collapse as a result. Requiring employers to provide the detailed information necessary for ballots would place an unfair administrative burden on them during tough times. Moreover, the new clause would shift responsibility for conducting a proper ballot from the unions to employers, effectively giving the union someone else to blame if there are flaws in their paperwork or ballot conduct.
	In general, the new clause has a number of fundamental flaws. It calls for the continuation of employment as well as an award for damages where an individual has been dismissed for industrial action. That is in effect a double bite at the cherry—an opportunity that would not be offered to normal employees in any other unfair dismissal proceedings. Hon. Members who have tabled the new clause either hope to carve out a preferential niche for striking workers or they should have consulted more widely on it.

Brian Binley: Let me declare an interest. I have been the managing director of a company employing 140 people who has been the target of vexatious claims. I hope that that interest is well understood by Labour Members.
	I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the statement in proposed new section 238AA(2):
	"A worker has the right not to be subjected to any detriment by any act, or deliberate failure to act, by his employer".
	Does that not give an employee who has not been promoted a year and a half after industrial action the right to claim constructive dismissal on the basis that he was denied promotion because he had taken part in that strike?

Jonathan Djanogly: I think that my hon. Friend's point is very arguable, and is of huge concern in the context of the real impact of these provisions.
	The new clause goes on to offer striking workers immunity from dismissal proceedings by the company. That too goes one step further than the current provisions of section 238A, thus pushing the new clause further into the category of what we see as unacceptable. I am afraid that, from a pro-business standpoint, it loses none of its initial unreasonableness as it proceeds. Taken as a whole, the new clauses would tie the hands of business in an unacceptable manner, at a time when we should be unburdening businesses to allow them to survive these turbulent times.
	What I have said about new clause 1 could just as easily be applied to new clause 2. Again, trade union representatives are seeking preferential treatment for those on strike, or, in this particular case, those about to strike. On a fundamental level, I find the new clause difficult to swallow. It would place a duty on an employer to assist in an action that would harm their own business, which is akin to asking a condemned man to tie his own noose.
	Section 226 of the 1992 Act requires unions to hold a ballot before industrial action is taken for it to fall within the category of "protected action", and the Act goes on to secure a union's right to strike. That right should not be further extended to impose a duty on companies to assist union members in bringing their action within the protection of the legislation. If union officials cannot do that themselves, and also need the company to supply the details of their own members, I cannot see why they deserve the protection that the new clause would provide.
	New clause 3 would prevent companies from employing workers to fill the places left by those taking industrial action, which I think the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) called a scam.

Ronnie Campbell: That is what it is.

Jonathan Djanogly: The new clause would hamstring businesses and prevent them from continuing their business during such action, which in turn would artificially exacerbate the effect of any industrial action, and would hand a powerful bargaining tool to the unions.
	Given the anti-business rationale of the new clauses, we in the Conservative party oppose them wholeheartedly, and strongly suggest that the Government do the same.

Lorely Burt: Following that speech, I hope to throw a little more light than heat on our proceedings.
	Unlike some Members, I have listened carefully to both sides of the argument, and have taken advice from both the TUC and the CBI. On new clause 1, I cannot quite agree with the CBI, which has said:
	"Implying that industrial action is inherently lawful would represent the most fundamental change to industrial relations law in generations—and could empower trade unions to bring our economy to its knees".
	I do not recognise that description, nor do I recognise the description that we heard from the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly).
	New clause 1 would replace the section of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 which deals with the dismissal procedures applying to those who participate in official industrial action with a new section that strengthened the protection of employees participating in lawful industrial action. The question is whether the onus should be on the employer to prove that a dismissal was not related to a strike, or on the employee to prove that it was. If the dispute was about wages the new clause would work, but if it related to disciplinary charges or charges of victimisation, it might well encourage workers to go on strike in the knowledge that they could not be sacked. Although I am very sympathetic to the aims of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), I hope that the Government will investigate the new clause further, and return with a proposal on which all Members can agree.

Ronnie Campbell: Wishy-washy!

Lorely Burt: From a sedentary position, the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) describes my position as wishy-washy. I would suggest— [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must not have these continued interruptions. They seriously disrupt the debate. If the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) wishes to intervene, he should do so in the usual way.

Lorely Burt: One man's wishy-washy might turn out to be another person's honest attempt to take a balanced view. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Blyth Valley does not recognise that.
	The Liberal Democrats are not in a position to support the new clause at this stage, but we believe that the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington has made an interesting and valid point. I hope that the Government will be able, on another occasion, to present us with a measure that could work in any number of circumstances.
	I am afraid that we are not in a position to support new clause 2 either, because it appears to place an onerous requirement on employers to supply information to unions in relation to industrial action ballots. As I am sure all Members know, strike action can have extremely serious consequences for a business or organisation.

Ian Stewart: The hon. Lady says that strike action can have an onerous effect on employers. I was an officer for the Unite trade union for 20 years, and never once encountered a trade union member who wished to go on strike. Employees never gain from strike action: they lose money that they never get back, and they can only ever achieve what they were aiming for.
	The hon. Lady should bear in mind the fact that although employers have legitimate claims about industrial action, so do employees. That is why the law is couched in a way that protects employees against detriment. Any employee whose name is not on the list is not protected; the aim of including all the names on the list is to protect the employees as well as the employer.

Lorely Burt: I certainly did not intend to imply that strike action does not have serious consequences for employees as well. When industrial relations reach that point it is always a tragedy, and I am sure that both sides would want to avoid that at all possible costs.
	I consider it right for any union proposing a strike to keep meticulous records, and to supply full information as specified in the current legislation. If subsequent stages are problematic in the way described by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington—for instance, if judges grant injunctions in apparently unreasonable circumstances—that is surely a matter for the judicial system rather than the employer.

Gordon Marsden: I am listening carefully to the hon. Lady's speech, and I understand the balance that she is trying to strike, but may I ask her what redress employees have in a poisonous industrial dispute in which an employer furnishes false information about their status?

Lorely Burt: The hon. Gentleman probably knows the answer to that question better than I do. Perhaps he will be able to inform the House later.
	How does an employer know whether all the categories of staff on whom the union asks for information are actually union members? I suggest that he cannot know. Is it not up to unions to keep records of their own members? In my view, the new clause imposes an onerous additional requirement on employers.
	New clause 3 is reasonable, and we would support it. It seems that there are loopholes in existing law and that employers and agencies are colluding to get round current legal requirements. If, as some Members might wish to imply, such loopholes do not exist, there is no harm in adding the new clause to the Bill.
	We do not support new clauses 1 and 2. I believe that the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington will press only new clause 2 to a Division. That is a shame, as I would have welcomed the opportunity to support him on new clause 3.

Michael Penning: I will not detain the House for long. Many of the old Labour Members who are present will know that I am a trade unionist: I was a proud member of the Fire Brigades Union for many years. When I joined the FBU—which was before it was thrown out of the Labour party—it was a closed shop, although I am pleased to be able to say that the union has moved on from that.
	I have grave concerns about two aspects of these amendments. New clause 1 has been extensively discussed, but I wish to talk about proposed new section 238AB(4)(b), relating to complaints to employment tribunals. It states:
	"and for the avoidance of doubt, compensation may be awarded in respect of injury to feelings whether or not awarded under any other head."
	That measure would allow an unlimited sum of compensation to be awarded for "injury to feelings". How will that be assessed? My feelings are very upset that old Labour Members are not screaming and shouting at me, as a former trade union member, for standing up to speak against new clause 1. Am I to be compensated for that? Should I approach a trade union and say, "Come and represent me, and see if my feelings have been hurt"? This is a ludicrous situation.

Rob Marris: rose—

Michael Penning: No, I will not give way.
	Under this proposed measure, an unlimited sum of compensation could be imposed on a large or small company because somebody's feelings had been hurt. I am sure that this proposed new section was drafted with the best intentions, but it should have been drafted much better, and that could also be said of several other parts of new clause 1.

Rob Marris: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

Michael Penning: No.
	As for new clause 2, I am astonished that so many of the trade union members and former trade union members who are at this moment sitting on the Labour Benches—some of them with 20-odd years' experience as officials in trade unions—do not have a clue where their members are. How can they turn to an employer and say, "Excuse me, but I'm not quite sure where my membership is at present, so will you please be kind enough to let me know where my members are?" What sorts of organisations are you Labour Members members of? My fishing club knows where I live, let alone a trade union with thousands or millions of members around the country. Perhaps some of your members should have more contact from you. Perhaps some of your members should know—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must remember that they are not my members.

Michael Penning: If you were a member, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am sure you would know where your office was and where your membership was.

Iain Duncan Smith: For the avoidance of doubt, my hon. Friend should know that for a number of years now one of the larger unions has insisted that I am a member of that union, and I repeatedly get voting rights papers coming through the door. The unions had got themselves into quite a mess even when I was leader of the party, and this is why these Labour Members have tabled this new clause.

Michael Penning: My right hon. Friend highlights the complete chaos that still exists within the trade unions. Perhaps before the unions go to the employers and ask where their members are, they should make a point of contacting their members and explaining to them how much of their contribution to the trade union goes to the Labour party and is bankrolling the Government. That is crucial, because if they are doing that— [Interruption.] Labour Members say from a sedentary position they are doing that now, but if they are doing that, they do not need an employer's help to find out where their members are. On that basis, any sensible person would oppose new clause 2.

Hywel Williams: I am pleased to express my support for the new clauses. If there is a Division I shall support new clause 2, and I hope the Government will take account of our discussions on new clauses 1 and 3 and will look to make changes to the provisions.
	As Friction Dynamex has been referred to, I shall speak briefly about that company. I am the MP for Caernarfon where it was located, and I represent the bulk of workers. The other workers are represented by the hon. Members for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) and for Conwy (Mrs. Williams), and I hope they will be able to make their views clear if there is a Division.
	I shall not rehearse the events at Friction Dynamex in detail, except to say that the workers did win their case at the industrial tribunal in the face of provocations and manipulations, and evasions and underhand and infamous tactics on the part of the employer. They and the union concerned were very careful to follow the rules and the law. They acted properly, and they remained united with the support of the local community. They won their case at the industrial tribunal because, fortuitously, my predecessor, Dafydd Wigley, kept recorded contemporaneous accounts of a telephone conversation with the employer, which revealed his real intentions, which were to provoke a strike, sack the workers, strip the assets from the company and make away with large sums of money. That is what happened at Friction Dynamex, and the aftermath is that Friction Dynamex has closed, the factory is derelict, the workers have been dispersed and have received no compensation, and the employer has now set up in another town and, from all accounts, is up to his old tricks again.
	These new clauses seem to me to be eminently reasonable in their intention. They would have led to this case not having to come before an industrial tribunal and to the avoidance of years of struggle, stress, loss of earnings and loss of compensation, which my constituents, and those of other Members, faced in this long drawn-out industrial dispute. Had these provisions been in place, there would also have been a disincentive to bad employers to set up in the first place, setting in train the sort of wicked plans the employer at Friction Dynamex followed. I hope the Government take notice of this debate and look carefully at changing the provisions so that good employment practices can drive out the bad. That is no small prize.

Patrick McFadden: Let me begin by thanking the many hon. Friends who have turned up to support this important Bill, which deals with a number of issues that are close to our hearts.
	I think it is safe to say that the new clauses would take the Bill into some new areas compared with the debates we have had so far, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) said, some of them reflect the private Member's Bill that he and other Members sponsored not long ago.
	New clause 1 proposes extensive changes to the law protecting individuals against dismissal or the suffering of other detriment for taking, or proposing to take, industrial action. My hon. Friend is always modest when proposing these changes; he describes them as modest and minor tidying procedures, but although I appreciate that these are sometimes subjective judgments I am not sure whether everything he has said would be regarded as such.
	The law with which new clause 1 deals was changed by the Employment Relations Acts 1999 and 2004, which introduced two new forms of protection against dismissal for employees taking part in protected industrial action—in other words, action that is official and lawfully organised. The first protection was that it became automatically unfair to dismiss individuals for taking protected industrial action lasting 12 weeks or less—we also discounted lock-out days from the calculation of that 12-week period. My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington and the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams), who spoke for the Welsh nationalists, mentioned the Friction Dynamics dispute. Some of these changes came in after that dispute, and reflect the changed legal picture since.
	The second protection covers the actions taken by an employer to resolve a trade dispute with a trade union. Under the law, it is unfair to dismiss a person for taking any form of protected industrial action, including action lasting more than 12 weeks, where the employer has failed to take reasonable procedural steps to try to resolve the trade dispute—a protection does extend beyond the 12 weeks where the employer refuses to engage. Those significant protections have come into force since some of the disputes that have been mentioned, and they cover the vast bulk of official industrial action. Most industrial action is relatively short-lived; few disputes last more than 12 weeks. We can argue about the past, but the statutory protections against dismissal are greater than have been in place for a long time.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington believes that the law should specify in detail what sanctions short of dismissal the employer may apply against those taking part in protected industrial action and that those sanctions should be limited to the loss of earnings when the workers are on strike and, therefore, not working. That is typically what happens at the moment, although I accept that there can be disputes about this. For example, I understand that in a recent case in the education sector there was concern that the employer had deducted larger sums from pay than was fair in relation to the dispute. The court found in favour of the union member, stating that the employer had incorrectly calculated the amounts of pay to be deducted. In that case, the existing law provided an adequate constraint against abuse.
	New clause 1 contains an extensive proposal to change the law by making it, in effect, unlawful for an employer to terminate a contract, where it is broken by a worker, for taking protected industrial action. The new clause would make it automatically unfair to dismiss an employee if any of the reasons concerned the taking of protected industrial action and would lift the limit of compensation.

Brian Binley: The Minister will know that I welcomed the Bill in Committee, specifically because it placed more responsibility on ACAS to negotiate before tribunals were reached. Does he recognise that new proposed new section 238AA(2) opens up the opportunity for vexatious cases in the way that I described in Committee? Such an approach has helped to create a blackmail culture, which has made many small businesses give in to charges because it is cheaper to do so than to fight them. Will this proposal not simply open that up again?

Patrick McFadden: Elsewhere in the Bill we are strengthening the role of ACAS in dispute resolution, as is right. We have also committed to increase funding to ACAS in order that it may fulfil this role. That is the right thing to do, because if we can resolve more disputes before they reach a tribunal, that is in the interests of all concerned.
	New clause 1 also proposes that tribunals be required to order the reinstatement or re-engagement of people sacked under these provisions. Under the new clause, the tribunal would not have a judgment to make about the suitability of reinstatement. This is a delicate area, because automatic reinstatement may not be suitable in all cases. As we know, tribunals can order reinstatement in some circumstances. I appreciate the intent behind the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington, but there is at least a question to be answered about why unfair dismissal on the grounds covered in his new clause should be treated differently from unfair dismissal on the grounds of discrimination or disability.
	New clause 1 is based on the premise, which the Government do not share, that the law governing these matters is grossly unfair to one party. There will always be debate about the balance in these situations, but we believe that, through the reforms that I have cited, we have put in place a fair and balanced system of protection for those taking industrial action.

Ian McCartney: An important aspect lies in ensuring that a tribunal has the capacity to take a decision other than reinstatement. There are occasions when between being dismissed unfairly and a tribunal decision the worker seeks and gains employment somewhere else. If it is simply a matter of reinstatement, they will lose the opportunity to be compensated for the loss of their job and for being dismissed unfairly. It is crucial that the options should include reinstatement, but, where that is not in the worker's interests, an alternative to reinstatement should be forced on an employer, if necessary, by the tribunal.

Patrick McFadden: My right hon. Friend makes a strong point about discretion for tribunals in this situation and about why automatic reinstatement may not always be the wisest action.
	The essence of new clause 2 is to enlist the support of the employer to ensure that the trade union can fulfil its legal obligations regarding industrial action ballots. Representations have been made to the Government about the information required in the balloting process and so on. The question I pose is whether the right answer is to impose this new duty on the employer, in effect, to aid the trade union in organising industrial action. Again, my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington may view this is a minor tidying amendment, but I am not sure whether that is how it would be seen.

Michael Clapham: The Minister will be aware that there are 274,000 companies in the construction industry and that an amalgam of companies work on many of the larger sites. Many of the employees are falsely self-employed, so it becomes terrifically difficult to organise any kind of industrial action in a way that will engage everyone who is working and who has the right to strike. A provision of this nature would cover those circumstances.

Patrick McFadden: As I said, representations have been made to us about the difficulty that the law imposes on trade unions' organising industrial action. There is a rationale behind that difficulty, because we want disputes to be properly organised and for there to be a ballot where people can express their views in private and make a free choice. In response to those representations, is the right thing to do, as the new clause proposes, to place an onus on the employer to aid the union in organising the industrial action?

John McDonnell: I shall try to be as constructive as I can. Does that mean that the Government have set in motion some form of review of the balloting procedure? Is there a timetable for them to come back with reforms and recommendations?

Patrick McFadden: My hon. Friend is over-interpreting what I am saying; I am saying that we have received representations about this matter, but I am not indicating what he suggested. He says that the employer should assist the trade unions because the obligations on them are too onerous and small slips by a union can result in legal action against it, the granting of injunctions and so on. The new duty on the employer that he proposes would relieve what he sees as an excessive burden on the union. Again, I hope that he would acknowledge that we took steps in the 1999 and 2004 Acts to clarify industrial action law. About a dozen measures were taken to unravel some of the complexity in that area. For example, new section 232B of the 1992 Act permits the court to disregard small accidental failures by the trade union to comply with key aspects of the law on industrial action ballots—so some flexibility has been provided.

Andrew Miller: Surely my hon. Friend realises that cases cited in this debate provide examples of when judges have not used that flexibility, but instead interpreted the rules in a way that suits employers.

Patrick McFadden: Some of those cases have been quoted to me, but I am not sure that new clause 2 would answer those concerns.

Ian Stewart: My hon. Friend is correct to say that the Government have introduced legislation in the interests of working people and employers. I am not a lawyer, but the crux of the matter—this is what exercises me greatly—is that there is a difference between the approach to law in a criminal court, which is there to see justice done, and that of an industrial court, which is there to see the word of the law carried out. Industrial courts are very much colder and deal with much more specific situations. No matter what the member for the Fire Brigades Union, the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), says, it is almost impossible for organisations as big as trade unions to be word perfect and on the dot.

Patrick McFadden: I appreciate my hon. Friend's point, but I disagree that it is almost impossible. Ballots are organised, and official and legal industrial actions do take place.

Andrew Miller: Before my hon. Friend took that intervention, I think that he was about to say that he was not sure whether the new clause would do the trick and solve the problem of the trade union cases brought to his attention. Does he recognise that those cases are matters for concern and that the Government should address and solve the problem that they pose?

Patrick McFadden: I do not want to put myself in the position of judges in such cases, but, if my hon. Friend will bear with me, I shall touch on one of those examples in a moment.
	The changes that we have made make it clear that trade unions are not expected to hold perfect information about their members whom they intend to ballot. The information supplied in the notices
	"must be as accurate as is reasonably practicable in the light of the information in the possession of the union at the time".
	The presumption is not, therefore, that the union must access information available to others. To comply with the law, it will not need information held by the employer that it will not necessarily possess.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller) asked about some of the cases quoted, one of which concerned a recent dispute involving bus drivers—I, too, have received representations about that. I am always cautious when commenting on particular cases, because I do not pretend to know all the facts, but my understanding of that case is that the issue in dispute—pardon the pun—was the timeliness of the information, rather than the accuracy of the ballot result.

John McDonnell: That was my point: 36 hours elapsed between the receipt by the general secretary of the ballot result, which was overwhelmingly in favour of the dispute, and the application of the union's internal democratic procedure, including consideration by the general secretary, the executive and the regions—in Unite, the regions are quite important. During those 36 hours, the union was injuncted because the employer was not informed in time. I do not believe that anyone would consider it reasonable for the court to make such a decision.

Patrick McFadden: The new clause deals with something different: the employer helping the union organise the ballot. The question has been raised about whether unions should know who and where their members are. We have encouraged unions to keep better records—in fact, we made funding available for it through the union modernisation fund—because we think that that is in the interests not only of trade unions, but of society as a whole.

Ian Stewart: I accept totally what my hon. Friend says about the union modernisation fund and the attempt to modernise unions—something similar should have been put in place for employer organisations. Nevertheless, does my hon. Friend accept that it is almost impossible for organisations with 7 million members to be perfect? If that is true of trade unions, it must also be true of organisations such as the National Trust, which has 1 million members. Why are trade unions treated differently?

Patrick McFadden: Twice my hon. Friend has said that it is almost impossible, but I disagree. Unions manage to organise legal industrial action ballots.

Andrew Dismore: My hon. Friend says that unions organise legal ballots, but most employers do not challenge the ballots in the courts. As a lawyer who practised in this area, I can tell hon. Members that were I acting for the employer, there would be very few ballots with which I could not find something wrong to present to the court.

Patrick McFadden: These debates are always enriched by union lawyers who have practised in this area, and I take all their points seriously.
	I am happy to maintain a dialogue with trade unions, as with anyone, about how the law operates, but I am not convinced that a duty on employers to help trade unions organise ballots is the right way forward, so I am afraid that I cannot agree with new clause 2.

Ian McCartney: Employers, such as the Post Office, rightly have the opportunity to write to their employees about why they should not strike. If that happens, it means that the employer has decided what position the work force is likely to take in the ballot. That must mean that it has the information available to enable it to write to its work force. Employers and trade unions should have access to a common list of people with whom to communicate. Increasingly, employers, such as the Royal Mail, that take unions to court will have already written to employees—legitimately—asking them not to take part in a dispute. On that basis, a way forward might be found, if my hon. Friend will look at it.

Patrick McFadden: I respect what my right hon. Friend says; he has significant experience in such matters. As I said, the Government are not convinced that the right way forward is to require the employer to help the union to organise the ballot.

Tony Lloyd: I listened carefully to what my hon. Friend said about new clause 2 and the ills put before him. I think that he has accepted that there is the capacity for some ills to arise in this area of the law and, in particular, that the law should not allow an employer artificially to frustrate the democratic will of trade union members where the union is only the servant of that will. Will he undertake to consider what remedies could be made available to deal, for example, with the Metrobus situation, in which it is quite clear that the employer used an injunction to stop a strike that the employees thought was valid?

Patrick McFadden: A couple of my hon. Friends have tempted me to give undertakings, but I am afraid that I cannot do that this evening. As I said, however, we are always happy to have a dialogue about such issues.
	Let me turn briefly to new clause 3, which seeks to strengthen the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations 2003 in respect of the supply of workers. The approach behind the conduct regulations is to seek to reflect the interests of work-seekers, employment agencies and employment businesses, and the companies that use their services— [ Interruption. ] Regulation 7— [ Interruption. ]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Conversations are breaking out throughout the House. The House must listen to the Minister who is addressing it.

Patrick McFadden: Regulation 7 already contains provisions prohibiting employment businesses from supplying temporary workers to replace workers who are taking part in a strike or other form of industrial action. The same regulation prevents employment businesses from supplying temporary workers to do the work of other workers who have been transferred by the business to do the work normally done by individuals taking action. New clause 3 seeks to add to that provision by placing similar prohibitions on businesses that seek to hire agency workers and by requiring those businesses to inform the employment business of any strike or other industrial action when seeking to hire workers wholly or partly as a result of that industrial action.
	Representations have been made to me and to the Department about compliance with that provision. Although the employment business is liable to be prosecuted for any unlawful supply of agency workers, the allegation is made that non-compliance could be at the behest of the business hiring the agency workers. In addition, there might be circumstances where the agency is not aware whether the workers it supplies are working in an area that is affected by industrial action. That is the representation that is sometimes made. I know that we have been given examples, but we have received few reports that the existing provisions have not proved effective.
	There have been a number of investigations by the employment agency standards inspectorate into complaints about breaches of the provision and, in the vast majority of cases, the inspectors have not found evidence of non-compliance. Indeed, there is evidence that agencies take their responsibilities under the provision very seriously, frequently warning their client companies that they cannot supply workers to replace those taking strike action. The new clause would also require businesses to inform the employment business of such action when seeking to hire workers, but unions often inform the employment businesses that industrial action is taking place in order to ensure that the employment business cannot claim to have no knowledge of it.
	Finally, I point out to my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington that other provisions in the Bill strengthen the enforcement of the conduct regulations. It is important to take account of them when judging the debate.
	Clause 15 enables the more serious breaches of employment agency legislation to be prosecuted in the Crown court, where the maximum penalty would be an unlimited fine. Therefore, the consequences for employment businesses of breaching the conduct regulations could be a lot more serious in future.

Rob Marris: Does my hon. Friend—and neighbour—accept that the UK is currently in breach of some parts of international labour standards conventions, to which this country is a signatory? We have ratified those conventions. If my hon. Friend accepts that, by what date will our country be in compliance with those conventions?

Patrick McFadden: I thank my hon. Friend—and neighbour—for his intervention. His interventions are always helpful. I remind him that, as far as I am aware, we have not been censured by the International Labour Organisation on this issue, and that is an eloquent statement on this matter.
	The other provision to which I want to draw the House's attention is clause 16, which strengthens the investigatory powers of the employment agency standards inspectorate, for example by enabling inspectors to remove documents from the agency's premises. Those provisions will enable inspectors to obtain more readily the relevant records of numbers of agency workers supplied during industrial disputes, and thus enhance inspectors' ability to investigate such complaints. In conclusion—

Kate Hoey: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Patrick McFadden: I have given way to everybody else, so I will give way to my hon. Friend.

Kate Hoey: My hon. Friend mentioned the strengthening measures in clause 15, which would mean that people could go to the Crown court. Given the example that my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) gave about Royal Mail, does the Minister expect anybody from Royal Mail to end up in the Crown court?

Patrick McFadden: That is not a decision for me. That would be how the law applied if somebody took up a complaint that was thought to be strong enough to merit that.
	In conclusion, I am aware of some of the representations that have been made. We are always happy to look into these things, but I am afraid that I cannot accept the new clauses. My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington has said that he wants to press one of them to a vote, but I am afraid that I shall have to ask colleagues to oppose it.

John McDonnell: I shall be brief, because there is much important business that we need to reach tonight. I am disappointed by the complete absence of movement on any of these issues—even after the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Tony Lloyd). I was expecting a form of words that would enable us to move forward.
	On the first issue of unfair dismissal and detriment during an industrial dispute, some of us might live in different worlds, but in my constituency and across the country people have been sacked unfairly on a number of occasions. They do not feel that they have the appropriate protections. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) made a point about international law and ILO conventions, and yes, we are in breach of them. We have consistently been in breach of them. Various international reports, which I listed earlier, have emphasised that point. We no longer have the standards of industrial and trade union rights in this country that apply across the rest of Europe. I was simply seeking to ensure that there would at least be a power for reinstatement. My right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) raised the issue of reinstatement and said that in some instances that would be detrimental to the individual. Under new clause 1, that would have happened only if the complainant wished to be reinstated. It offered flexibility, so that there would be the right to secure one's job again.
	I am also disappointed that there has been no movement on balloting. I acknowledged that the Government have taken steps on two occasions, in 1999 and 2004. We have cited example after example to show that in practice those steps have not enabled the democratic wishes of trade unionists undertaking a ballot to enable action to take place on the majority vote. The flexibility that we thought that we secured when I supported the Government in 1999 and 2004 is not being applied by the courts. We have given example after example of that.
	An example was given that involved the buses. It is not just about employers having a duty to provide information in ballots. New clause 2 would place a duty on the employer "reasonably to co-operate generally" with a trade union while it engages in balloting action to test the wishes of its members. I do not believe that we have had an acceptable answer that demonstrates that the Government would even consider a timetable for addressing the practical problems that trade unions experience in this country.
	We gave example after example of what agency workers have done to undermine industrial relations in this country. Let me give an example from my constituency. Before a dispute even took place, the employer, Gate Gourmet, went out and recruited agency workers and then herded my constituents into a shed and gave them three minutes to decide whether they would accept reduced wages and conditions. If they decided not to do so, they were replaced by agency workers. We are seeking to prevent such undermining. It does not just affect those individuals who are in dispute, but sours the industrial relations climate of this country.
	We are appealing for some movement from the Government. The Minister said that he had received representations, but I was hoping that the Government would consider them seriously and that, after consultation, they would come forward with proposals to tackle the concrete problems of industrial relations and trade union rights in this country. I bitterly regret that they have not done so.
	On that basis, and to save time this evening, I shall be happy to withdraw new clause 1. However, I wish to press new clause 2 on balloting procedures to a Division.
	I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
	 Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 2
	 — 
	Employer's duties in relation to industrial action ballots

"The following section is inserted after section 226C of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992—
	"226D Employer's duties in relation to industrial action ballots
	(1) It is the duty of an employer reasonably to co-operate generally, in connection with a ballot conducted or proposed for the purposes of section 226, with the trade union (or unions) and the person appointed to conduct the ballot.
	(2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), it is the duty of an employer to supply to a trade union in good time information reasonably requested by the trade union for the purposes of establishing the names, addresses, categories and workplaces of those members whom it wishes to ballot for the purposes of section 226.".'.— [John McDonnell.]
	 Brought up, and read the First time.
	 Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
	 The House proceeded to a Division.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.

The House having divided: Ayes 53, Noes 408.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 4
	 — 
	Time off for Workplace environmental representatives

'(1) The Employment Act 2002 (c.22) is amended as follows—
	(2) After section 43 there is inserted—
	"43A Workplace Environmental Representatives
	(1) An employer shall permit an employee of his who is—
	(a) a member of an independent trade union recognised by the employer, and
	(b) a workplace environmental representative of the trade union, to take reasonable time off during his working hours for any of the following purposes.
	(2) The purposes are—
	(a) carrying out any of the following activities—
	(i) promoting environmentally sustainable workplace initiatives and practices,
	(ii) carrying out environmental audits,
	(iii) being consulted on workplace environmental policies, practices and management systems,
	(iv) carrying out environmental risk assessments,
	(b) consulting the employer about carrying out any such activities,
	(c) preparing for any of the things mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b).
	(3) Subsection (1) only applies if—
	(a) the trade union has given the employer notice in writing that the employee is a workplace environmental representative of the trade union, and
	(b) the training condition is met in relation to him.
	(4) The training condition is met if—
	(a) the employee has undergone sufficient training to enable him to carry on the activities mentioned in subsection (2), and the trade union has given the employer notice in writing of that fact,
	(b) the trade union has in the last six months given the employer notice in writing that the employee will be undergoing such training, or
	(c) within six months of the trade union giving the employer notice in writing that the employee will be undergoing such training, the employee has done so, and the trade union has given the employer notice of that fact.
	(5) Only one notice under subsection (4)(b) may be given in respect of any one employee.
	(6) References in subsection (4) to sufficient training to carry out the activities mentioned in subsection (2) are to training that is sufficient for those purposes having regard to any relevant provision of a Code of Practice issued by ACAS or the Secretary of State.
	(7) If an employer is required to permit an employee to take time off under subsection (1), he shall also permit the employee to take time off during his working hours for the following purposes—
	(a) undergoing training which is relevant to his functions as a workplace environmental representative, and
	(b) where the trade union has in the last six months given the employer notice under subsection (4)(b) in relation to the employee, undergoing such training as is mentioned in subsection (4)(a).
	(8) The amount of time off which an employee is to be permitted to take under this section and the purposes for which, the occasions on which and any conditions subject to which time off may be so taken are those that are reasonable in all the circumstances having regard to any relevant provision of a Code of Practice issued by ACAS or the Secretary of State.
	(9) An employee may present a complaint to an employment tribunal that his employer has failed to permit him to take time off as required by this section.
	(10) References in subsection (2) to environmental audits and environmental risk assessments are to environmental audits and environmental risk assessments that are sufficient for those purposes having regard to any relevant provision of a Code of Practice issued by ACAS or the Secretary of State.
	(11) In subsection (2)(a), the reference to qualifying members of the trade union is to members of the trade union—
	(a) who are employees of the employer of a description in respect of which the union is recognised by the employer, and
	(b) in relation to whom it is the function of the workplace environmental representative to act as such.
	(12) For the purposes of this section, a person is a workplace environmental representative of a trade union if he is appointed or elected as such in accordance with its rules.'"'.— [John McDonnell.]
	 Brought up, and read the First time.

John McDonnell: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: new clause 6— Right not to be excluded or expelled from union: repeal—
	'In the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (c. 52) sections 174 to 177 (which make provision about the right to membership of trade union) are repealed.'.
	Amendment No. 3, page 17, line 7, leave out clause 19.
	Amendment No. 10, in clause 19, page 18, line 15, at end add—
	'(4) In section 177 (interpretation and other supplementary provision), after subsection (2) there is inserted—
	"(2A) For the purposes of section 174 an individual will only be considered to be a member of a political party if for the 12 months prior to the date of an individual's application for membership of the trade union or at any point thereafter that individual is registered with the political party as a member."'.
	Amendment No. 11, page 18, line 15, clause 19, at end add—
	'(4) In section 177 (interpretation and other supplementary provision), after subsection (2) there is inserted—
	"(2A) For the purposes of section 174 a group will be considered to be a political party only where it has been registered with the Electoral Commission under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (c. 41) or any foreign equivalent, and the party at the time of the individual's application for membership of the trade union remains on such a register."'.
	Amendment No. 2, in schedule, page 21, line 21, at end add—

'Part 6

REPEALS RELATING TO SECTION (Right not to be excluded or expelled from union: repeal)
	
		
			 Short Title and chapter Extent of repeal 
			 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (c. 52) Sections 174 to 177.'.

John McDonnell: I shall briefly speak on new clause 4. I am conscious of the time; there is important business to discuss, as I said earlier. The new clause seeks to provide— [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Would hon. Members who are not planning to listen or take part in the debate please leave the Chamber quietly and let us get on with it?

John McDonnell: First, I pay tribute to the Public and Commercial Services Union. The new clause had its genesis in a conference of PCS environmental representatives last year. They discussed the role that they could play in tackling climate change, and the significant role of workplace representatives. The new clause therefore seeks to provide the right in law to time off work for trade union representatives who serve as environmental representatives. It would ensure reasonable time off to promote environmentally sustainable practices at work, carry out environmental audits, consult on environmental policies and carry out environmental risk assessments. It would also allow time off for training for environmental workplace representatives.
	The law currently entitles trade union representatives to reasonable time off to fulfil trade union responsibilities regarding industrial relations and health and safety matters. That is covered by the ACAS code of practice on time off for trade union duties and activities. Trade unions are working in partnership with employers to play a greater role, particularly with regard to raising awareness of environmental issues, and to develop company policies on green workplace initiatives and practices. I give the example of PCS, which has a range of environmental representatives working in various Government Departments. Those representatives are increasingly active in developing policies to tackle climate change, prevent carbon emissions and improve the environmental standards in their workplaces. They have also established a national green forum.
	Why is the issue important? Half of carbon emissions are work related. Businesses and other organisations therefore have a critical role to play in reducing emissions. Staff at all levels need to be involved. The collective action of employees, working with employers, can lead to changes in policy and individual behaviour. To date, many employers have been slow to implement carbon reduction policies and wider environmental measures. Policy statements may well have been produced, but they have not yet been translated into practical action. The Labour Research Department found that one in nine employers had comprehensive measures on energy efficiency in place. More than half did not provide any training on environmental issues, and fewer than a quarter had environmental management plans in place.
	Trade unions are now developing their role to work with employers to ensure that they develop environmentally sustainable policies and practices within individual companies and organisations, and green—environmental—representatives from trade unions can play an important role in constructing and developing a practical agenda for implementation in the workplace. Staff are willing to get involved. A recent survey demonstrated their willingness to take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and their feeling that employers are not doing enough and employees need more support from employers to develop those policies. In the House, two early-day motions on that issue have been tabled over the past two years, and the last one received the support of more than 102 Members.
	We have ministerial support, too, for the unique role that trade unions can play. The Under-Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock), said:
	"Trade Unions have a unique and valuable role to play in raising awareness and mobilising people to help us address the challenge of climate change... And I want to congratulate those Union Environmental Reps who have demonstrated how negotiating skills and experience can be used to support environmental outcomes".
	The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, who was formerly responsible for such environmental matters, said that he had seen
	"at first hand the valuable role that union reps are playing... What is clear is that bottom-up union and employee led action can really make a difference."
	And, he said that he hoped that we could
	"use these pilots to demonstrate to employers the benefits of working in partnership in this area."
	Employers themselves have welcomed the development of worker partnership on environmental policies. Mark Gregory, the resources director at Legal & General, made a specific commitment on employee partnership, saying:
	"One of the most difficult areas in implementing any programme is engaging employees: without the active support of the union across the Group we would find this much harder to achieve."
	Similarly, we have examples from VCA, the vehicle certification agency, and a range of other employment organisations that value the role of environmental reps working within their organisation to tackle and develop environmental policies.
	The TUC, and individual unions such as Connect, the National Union of Teachers, the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers and the Public and Commercial Services Union, have all invested resources in training members to gain the expertise to contribute to tackling carbon emissions in this way. The Climate Change Bill, which we debated last month, set challenging targets on carbon emissions—an 80 per cent. cut by 2050. We all know how difficult that will be to reach, so we all need to fulfil our responsibilities and pull together.
	The new clause would recognise the enthusiasm among the work force for tackling that challenge. Trade unions are eager to play their role, and the new clause would enable their representatives to have the resources and facilities to do so actively and in full. The Government need to recognise that—not dampen the enthusiasm of those who have become involved in such work through the trade unions—and respond constructively. On that basis, I urge the Government to consider the new clause for inclusion if not in this legislation, then in some subsequent Bill. It would enable people to use trade union facilities to develop their role as environmental representatives and to achieve environmental sustainability.

Jonathan Djanogly: Looking at new clause 4, I wonder whether its promoters actually understand the meaning of work. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) seems to suggest that trade union members should be given special treatment, and that, where they take on more responsibilities, they should make excuses not to do their normal work in order to fulfil them. We find that unacceptable. Moreover, I received a letter dated 28 October 2008 from a Chris Baugh, the assistant general-secretary of PCS, in which he said that PCS had tabled an amendment to the Bill. I must say that I did not know that unions could table amendments in this place. Would the hon. Gentleman, who, presumably, is the PCS mouthpiece for this purpose, care to enlighten the House on the process that one must go through to become a workplace environmental rep?

John McDonnell: Can we just take one step back to respond to that statement? I outlined how a trade union was acting constructively to tackle an agenda that the whole House has supported, namely climate change, and preparing for consideration by Members an amendment that we might wish to promote to ensure that the union was able to do so. I am the chair of the parliamentary PCS group, which is an all-party group. We promote the union's views with which we obviously agree, and we consult unions. A number of Members from all parts of the House are members of various trade union groups, as I am, and, on an all-party basis, they listen to the views of the unions and, if they agree with them, bring them before the House. I thought that we should encourage organisations outside the House to engage constructively in the development of legislation. On that basis, I promote the new clause.

Jonathan Djanogly: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's clarification of the position regarding the letter, but it is still pretty unsatisfactory to hear that unions are talking about suggesting amendments to legislation in this place.

Graham Stuart: On that point, my hon. Friend knows that more than 90 per cent. of the funding of the modern Labour party comes from unions, so it is perhaps not surprising that they think they own those representatives who sit in this place.

Jonathan Djanogly: Yes. Perhaps the payroll has become so big that they now think they can—[ Interruption.]

John McDonnell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that allegations are being made that may relate to me personally. The allegation is that I have promoted a new clause on the basis of some financial link-up between the Labour party and PCS. That trade union is not affiliated to the Labour party, and the PCS parliamentary group is an all-party group.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps the House could moderate its language a little. I am sure that the remarks were not directed directly at the hon. Gentleman. These really are not matters for the Chair; they are matters for debate.

Jonathan Djanogly: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We will return to the new clause.

Ian Stewart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Jonathan Djanogly: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I shall make some little progress.
	We need to look at whether appointments to the position would be handed down from the trade union headquarters, or whether members would be encouraged to volunteer. If it was the latter, which I suspect it would be, would trade unions advertise the fact that the role would be in addition to an employee's usual duties, or would they promote the idea that the employer would be so pleased to have the employee acting as the union's green policeman that he or she would be given time off?

Ian Stewart: The hon. Gentleman has demonstrated his lack of understanding of the real world and, in particular, of industrial relations—once more. Does he not accept that plenty of voluntary organisations send suggested amendments to Bills to the Conservative party as well as to other parties? And, does he not accept that enshrined in law, now, is an arrangement whereby health and safety representatives are allowed reasonable time off to carry out their duties? What is the difference?

Jonathan Djanogly: I shall come to the difference in my later comments.
	There are several problems with the new clause. First, every business should be involved with environmentally sound practices, but we fail to see why employees who have trade union membership should have time off work for environmental issues when their colleagues at the next workstation simply have to get on with their work. Secondly, we do not appreciate the way in which the new clause attempts to unionise environmental issues in the workplace. "Workplace environmental reps" smacks of Orwellian, Big Brother tactics by unions. By bringing the issue within their remit, they seem to be attempting to secure preferential treatment for their members and, at the same time, to give their union a point of leverage over the business. Finally, we fail to see why the actions in proposed new section 43A(2) to the Employment Act 2002 would be better carried out by a trade union than by a company. If the proposal is for the workplace environmental rep to be there to oversee the company's own efforts, the new clause needs redrafting.

Alan Simpson: The Conservative party gave its support to the Climate Change Bill, which spelt out that the direction of change would specifically include the setting of annual carbon budgets, and that at some stage they would have to be translated into sectoral and company targets, so will the hon. Gentleman be kind enough to explain to the House the role that Conservative Members expect trade unions in a workplace to play in constructing the carbon budgets that the company seeks to introduce?

Jonathan Djanogly: I am sure that trade unions can make constructive comments and talk with management and other third parties about how they think the workplace should be improved environmentally; that does not mean that we should legislate for time off.
	I received a letter from the PCS in the run-up to today's debate. It saw the role of the workplace environmental rep as
	"ensuring that employers meet their carbon reduction targets, raising awareness of green issues in the workplace and ensuring that environmental issues are included in the bargaining agenda".
	I am still somewhat confused: what will the reps do that a company should not be doing anyway to bring itself in line with the Climate Change Bill? In these times of economic uncertainty, we must be careful in respect of the fundamental necessities. Continued employment, economic growth, financial stability and so on are all factors that must line up alongside the environment when we strike the balance. We support responsible, environmentally sound business practice, but we also support business efficiency and businesses' freedom of choice on how best to reach their overall environmental targets. That is why we oppose the new clause.
	I turn to clause 19, which deals with trade unions' right to exclude people because they are members of certain political parties.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am not sure that we are dealing with clause 19 at the moment.

Jonathan Djanogly: Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I come back in at a later stage of the debate?

Tony Lloyd: I do not mean to be unkind, but I can help the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly)—I think he was referring to new clause 6, which stands in my name and those of other hon. Members.
	A principle lies behind the new clause and the associated amendments, and in their original formulation of the Bill the Government seemed to accept it. It is that there is a reality not only to the concept of freedom of association, but to that of the freedom not to associate. That concept is accepted by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, which some years back expelled members with a pro-hunting agenda who had infiltrated it. It is also accepted by Churches; it would be inconceivable for people to be able to join a Church if they did not subscribe to its views. Furthermore, the concept is accepted by all political parties; mine has certainly sought to expel those whose aims are incompatible with its own. In that context, it is right and proper that the concepts of freedom of association and freedom not to associate should be exercisable by our trade unions.
	The British National party is very much the subject of the new clause and amendments. The party itself makes it clear in its own articles of association that it will not accept certain people as members. For example, it does not accept the ethnically Asian or those who are of African or Caribbean origin. The BNP itself accepts that the freedom not to associate is legitimate. I would not normally ever pray the BNP in aid, but it is worth recognising that although it prohibits certain people from membership, it does not respect that principle in the context of the trade union movement.
	In a BNP members' bulletin, a party representative wrote that any BNP member who was not a union member should join one, and that:
	"Those looking to be thrown out of a trade union and then getting a big five figure payout should make it known to the local union lefty that they are members and may be standing as candidates for the BNP."
	It later warned:
	"You haven't got long to get on this particular gravy train".
	The BNP is clear that it wants to infiltrate the trade union movement, not for the sake of membership of a democratic organisation whose objectives are the advancement of its members, but to subvert the union—as Nick Griffin, the BNP leader, said on the radio this very day—or to use it as a cash cow to finance BNP activities, or possibly those of its members.

Michael Penning: We have to be very careful. The hon. Gentleman is talking specifically about the BNP, but this is a catch-all new clause. Perhaps a party that we have not even heard of now will want to start an environmental campaign; under this new clause, it could easily be excluded. The BNP is abhorrent and horrid, but we are discussing a catch-all new clause that could catch any other political party in future.

Tony Lloyd: I shall not come to that point immediately, but if the hon. Gentleman bears with me I shall certainly address it towards the end of my remarks, because it is important.
	Those who know the background to the judgment that has led to the Bill will regard what I am about to say as a little long-winded. However, it is important to place on record the fact that the background to this whole situation is a decision by the European Court of Human Rights, which is controversial among some Conservative Members, although not among Labour ones. The Court sat in judgment on a case between ASLEF and Jay Lee, a BNP member who was expelled from the union.
	Industrial tribunals in the United Kingdom had held that the union had behaved unlawfully in expelling Mr. Lee. The Court, however, stated that:
	"it is uncontroversial that religious bodies and political parties can generally regulate their membership to include only those who share their beliefs and ideals. Similarly, the right to join a union 'for the protection of his interests' cannot be interpreted as conferring a general right to join the union of one's choice irrespective of the rules of the union: in the exercise of their rights under Article 11 � 1 unions must remain free to decide, in accordance with union rules, questions concerning admission to and expulsion from the union.
	The Court made a clear decision that ASLEF's action was legitimate. To return to the point made by the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), I should emphasise that the Court said that unions must remain free to decide in accordance with union rules; that is an important conditioner of union behaviour and of what the law means. The Court's decision was unequivocal. It went on to say that any restriction on a union's right to expel should be proportionate.
	Let me concede at this point that the Government's intentions have been proper: to make domestic law consistent with the judgment of the ECHR. Nothing lies between the Minister and other Labour Membersand, I hope, others across the Housein wanting that ambition to be achieved. As I said, when it made its first progress in the House of Lords, the Bill had a form of words that would have been acceptable to all parties, certainly to the Government and Labour Members. At that point the Government view was, rightly, that the combination of existing statute, union rule books, unions' legal obligation to conform to their rule books, and the capacity of the certification officer to rule on what the unions did, provided adequate protection against arbitrary or unfair expulsion or a refusal to accept for membership not BNP members but Conservative trade unionists, perhaps, or those from certain religious backgrounds.
	There is already protection against such arbitrariness in the law, save where it is clear in the rule book that that expulsion can take place in a way that is consistent with that rule book. I would say to the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead that under the clause as it stands, or under the amendment, the capacity of the union to change its rules to expel a member of the Labour party, for example, still exists. Under any of these formulations, it would be possible for a union to expel a member for political or other reasons as long as that was consistent with the rules.
	However, it is almost inconceivable that that would take place in a society such as ours. There is no evidence that any member of the Conservative party has ever been expelled by any trade unionthe Fire Brigades Union or any otheror that people have been expelled from trade unions for being members of the Labour party. That is because the values of the Conservative party, even though I do not share them, are consistent with the objectives of British trade unionsas are, clearly, the values of the Labour party. There is no inconsistency there; the inconsistency comes with a party that is avowedly fascist and does not share the ambitions of the trade unions for equality among their membersthose who are black or Asian, as well as those who are not black or Asian or are from any other minority ethnic community but share the anti-racist values of those unions.
	The problem with the amendments that the Government accepted in the House of Lords is that they have moved the agenda on to give too much protection to the individual who feels disgruntled by this process at the expense of the rights of the collective. In particular, these changes ignore the general principle of the right of any organisationpolitical party, charity or trade unionto freedom of association or freedom not to associate. The interests of an individual fascist who does not want to be a member of the same union as black, Jewish or Asian colleagues are put ahead of the rights of those black, Jewish or Asian colleagues not to want to be a member of a trade union with a fascist involved. That is an important freedom that is being eroded.

Michael Penning: The problem is that picking on a specific partyI do not want to give it too much oxygendoes not prevent someone who is openly fascist from being a member of a trade union. The danger lies in picking on a political party rather than an individual. As I understand it, this is not about the BNP but about abhorrent views of individuals. That is where the provisions should be much tighter.

Tony Lloyd: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is disagreeing with me, but perhaps that is because I did not properly understand what he was saying.
	Let me go back to the expulsion of Jay Lee. The question now arises whether the way in which he was expelled by ASLEF would be consistent with the law as it will be under the Bill as drafted. Jay Lee was a member of the BNPthere is no ambiguity about that. ASLEF's rule book says that
	no person shall be admitted into membership of ASLEF if by choice they are members of, supporters of, or sympathisers with, organisations which are diametrically opposed to the objects of the union, such as a fascist organisation.
	That focuses more on racism than on naming the BNP, and there are good reasons for not naming the BNP. ASLEF's rules clearly state that membership of ASLEF is incompatible with being a member of a fascist organisation. Jay Lee undoubtedly was such a person, and ASLEF resolved at its conference to expel him. That was consistent with its rule book, and the European Court held that it was a legitimate and legal thing for it to do.
	It is arguable under the Bill as it stands that because the union rule book does not mention the BNP by name, it would not be possible to have expelled Jay Lee from ASLEF. I think that the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead was with me in saying that we should be considering fascists, not just members of the BNP. In that case, he may find himself, surprisingly, on the same side as me in hoping that the Government will move on this. It is likely that the situation involving Jay Lee would still be found under domestic law to be outside the law, even though the European Court has clearly determined that it is within the terms of the European convention on human rights and therefore European law. There is a potential contradiction between the Bill and our existing law, which is of course guided by the European convention.
	Clause 19(2) states:
	Conduct which consists in an individual's being or having been a member of a political party is not conduct falling within subsection (4A) if membership of that political party is contrary to
	(a) a rule of the trade union, or
	(b) an objective of the trade union.
	It also says that such conduct is allowable only if membership of a named political party is in the union's rule book or objectives. The problem is that it is not beyond the realms of credibility for a political party, the BNP or any other, continually to go through the game of changing its nameto BNP 08, BNP 09, the NBP, the PNB, whatever it may beso as to always be one step ahead of any union rule book. Almost inevitably, the ability to change a union's rule book is not an instantaneous process. This is not Adam Smith's invisible handit has to take place at certain moments. I therefore fear that the fascist party can always be one step ahead of the union.

Patrick McFadden: I am reluctant to intervene on my hon. Friend, because I am conscious that I am going to get my chance to speak later, but he is making an important point. It is not the Government's view that the clause requires the union to name the political party in its rule book. The clause says that this is about
	Conduct which consists in an individual's being or having been a member of a political party
	if that membership is contrary to the rules and objectives of the union. It is the membership of the political party that would be contrary to the rules and objectives of the union. That does not mean that the party has to be named, but there is a contrast between membership of that party and the general ideological position as set out by the union in its rules and objectives.

Tony Lloyd: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I know that part of the difference between us is how this is interpreted. I am not concerned about whether he says that that is his intention but about whether the words in the Bill will be interpreted in that way by a tribunal or a court.  [ Interruption . ] I can hear my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) muttering from a sedentary position. I will give way to him in a few moments if he wishes.
	A considerable and serious body of legal opinion has considered this and said that what the Minister has set out will not be how the Bill is interpreted and that there is ambiguity in its wording.

Graham Stuart: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and he is making a persuasive argument, but I put it to him that for manyincluding me, I supposethe impact of communism was just as evil and damaging as that of fascism. I ask him to beware of the way in which this power might be used. It might be perfectly possible for a union in right-of-centre hands to proscribe membership of the Communist party, or any other party that is considered extreme at the time. I also put it to the hon. Gentleman that, unlike a church or a club, trade unionism is directly linked to someone's employment and means of making a living. It is in a different category, and I ask him to reconsider.

Tony Lloyd: Let me answer that simply. I do not think that what the hon. Gentleman refers to is different from a political party. Hopefully, our great political parties have a great material impact on the people of this country, and I would not want to allow the suggestion to run abroad that being a member of a political party is trivial, or membership of a Church for that matter. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, which has specific ambitions, expelled some members whose expulsion was held to be legal because it was consistent with what that organisation sought to do.

Andrew Dismore: I would like to back up the point of my hon. Friend the Minister. I do not see any reading of clause 19 that supports the idea that a political party would have to be named in the union's rules. To support what the Minister said, clause 19 says that conduct has to be contrary to a rule or an objective, not a rule and an objective, so it catches rather more than the Minister suggested.

Tony Lloyd: Yes, except for the fact that, as my hon. Friend knows, some good legal opinion says, We do not know what an objective means. It is not well defined in the Bill or more generally. We know what the rule book is, but to talk about the objectives of the union is to talk about an amorphous concept. With great respect to my hon. Friend, I know that he has far more legal experience than I have, but he does not have more legal experience than all the lawyers I have spoken to. He and other lawyers disagree, which does not mean to say that he is wrong, but he and my hon. Friend the Minister have to reflect on the fact that if lawyers are disagreeing at this point, the Bill is not good law. That is the issue we have to address.

Jonathan Djanogly: Is not the more fundamental problem that there is no definition of what a political party is? It does not have to be a political party at all; it could be a lobbying organisation.

Tony Lloyd: It could indeed be a lobbying organisation if, as in the case of ASLEF, it is a membership organisation that is fascist. That touches on what we are seeking to achieve. The ASLEF rulebook was consistent with its ambition to drive racists out of the union because they are incompatible with the rest of its members. It is important that it can so proscribe, which is why we do not want to build into the Bill the need to name the BNP or whatever. There is obviously a dispute between us as to whether that is necessary.

Ian McCartney: Sometimes in the trade union movement we are in danger, if we are not careful, of taking an opinion from a lawyer and placing it against another lawyer's opinion while failing to have an opinion ourselves. What we have here is a victory plus, if my hon. Friend does not mind me saying so. The big thing about the fascist movement is that it will always splitthe National Front, the BNP and so on. Someone else will come along. The issue is whether the judgment gives the capacity for trade unions to establish principles in law and practice to defend themselves against infiltration by organisations or individuals representing organisations. The fact of the matter is that it will. If we had listened to all the lawyers in 1999, we would never have passed the legislation that some people have been arguing about tonight.

Tony Lloyd: My right hon. Friend knows that he and I have great mutual respect, admiration and all the rest of it, but that does not mean to say that he is right in this case . [ Interruption. ] Neither he nor I is a lawyer, so we have a big advantage. It is precisely because lawyers clashed on the matter in the first place that we ended up with the ASLEF decision going to the industrial tribunal. The tribunal made its decision, but it was overturned at the European court, and that was not because lawyers disagreed over some academic legal exercise. Sometimes, lawyers disagree about the most profound issues that affect real people's lives. That is what we are talking about.
	If the Bill were definitely a plus plus, I would happily be on the same side as my hon. Friend the Minister and my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney). The problem is that there is a real concern that the law is not workable, which is the real difficulty. If it is not workable, and it does not allow a trade union to exercise what the House wants it to exercise, we are not writing good law. It is the duty of this House not to quibble about what lawyers sayI agree with my right hon. Friend on thatbut to quibble about what the law will do in practice. That is the issue before us.

Jonathan Djanogly: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that not having a definition of a political party will lead to a lawyers' feast? For instance, Militant Tendency was not a political partyit was a newspaper. Does he think that should be captured?

Tony Lloyd: That is not relevant in this case.

Graham Stuart: Why not?

Tony Lloyd: With great respect, these are interesting debating points, but they are not serious debating points. As I said to the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead, if we are determined to capture fascist organisations [ Interruption. ] I think that the hon. Member for Huntingdon may have given it away, because he said he is not in favour of capturing fascist organisations. That is the difference. Those in my party want unions to have the capacity to expel members of the BNPpeople who are racist and fascistfrom their membership.

Jonathan Djanogly: rose

Tony Lloyd: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will clarify the Conservative party's position.

Jonathan Djanogly: I am simply going to qualify the hon. Gentleman's remark on what he thinks I believe, which is not at all correct. We simply say that the clause will catch all organisations: fascist, communist or Greenpeace. Even Conservatives and Liberal Democrats could be banned under the clause.

Ian McCartney: It is plus plus then.

Tony Lloyd: I do not think that I shall comment on the point of my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield, except to acknowledge it, which means it will now appear in the  Official Report.
	Under the Bill, or my new clause, it would always be possible for the rules to be drawn up to exclude people in a way that most of us would regard as unfairthat is right. But it would require an open debate in our society, of the kind we are having today, about the exclusion of fascists, and about whether it is right and proper to exclude members of the Labour party, the Conservative party, Christian Scientists or whatever. I must say this, however: no trade union has ever gone down that road. Neither the hon. Member for Huntingdon nor any of his friends can give me an example of where trade unions have sought to expel someone for being a member of the Conservative party, the Liberal Democrats or any other mainstream political party. This is a very specific situation. We must not prevent the House from giving trade unions the proper capacity to do what they ought to on behalf of their members by raising the bogus spectre of unions abusing a power they have never sought, or sought to abuse.

Rob Marris: May I kindly suggest that my hon. Friend should not get too bogged down in what the Opposition are saying because they do not seem to be aware of his position? His amendment No. 3 would remove clause 19 from the Bill. I say to the Opposition that my hon. Friend is not seeking to defend the wording in clause 19 in any way; he is seeking to remove it. If they had bothered to read the Order Paper, which the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) clearly had nothe would not have got lost otherwisethey would realise what my hon. Friend's position is.

Tony Lloyd: I think that the hon. Member for Huntingdon wants to make another speechif he is able to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speakerso perhaps when he does, he might want to clarify the Conservative party's position. It seems that he is arguing not only against clause 19, but the amendments and anything that would give powers to trade unions to expel members of the BNP. That is the important distinction. Those in my party, including the Minister and me, want the same objective, which is to give trade unions the proper capacity to expel.

Jonathan Djanogly: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Tony Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman will make his own speech.

Jonathan Djanogly: No, I am not going to.

Tony Lloyd: How interesting. In that case, I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) first.

John Mann: The Government do not seem to understand that the critical principle is not about membership of a political party but about active racism and fascism. The case that the Attorney-General recently prosecuted provided a good example of the sort of person whom unions would not want as a member. A fascist was prosecuted for the first time in this country for uploading a neo-Nazi website from America that would have been banned in this country. Is not that precisely the sort of person whom unions should have the right, in principle, to exclude from membership?

Tony Lloyd: I agree, and stress that the Government share that objective. We are not disputing objectives, but I am not sure what those of the Conservative party are.

Jonathan Djanogly: The hon. Gentleman said that we opposed clause 19that is not the case. The Conservative party appreciates and respects the finding of the European Court of Human Rights. Indeed, the clause that we are discussing is a compromise provision that Liberal Democrats and Conservatives in the other place proposed. Our opinion is that it still needs refining.

Tony Lloyd: We are at one about that, but I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman's definition of refinement and mine are the same.
	There are serious doubts about whether the Bill as it stands achieves what we all supportcompatibility with the European Court's decision, and unions' ability to expel fascists from their organisation. However, the serious concerns apply not only to the measure's overall structure but more narrowly to the belt and braces of the clause. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, there is a genuine question about what objectives mean and how the word is interpreted. He shakes his head, and he may want to comment further when he makes a speech, but the point has been made by reputable members of his profession. Although I accept the injunction of my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield not to take seriously questions between lawyers, it is important that we know what we are talking about when considering clause 19.
	There are concerns about the Bill's rigidity and inflexibility, especially the provision to protect those who are excludednot expelledfrom joining, which would not apply to any other organisation. The European Court of Human Rights did not ask for a would-be member of a union who was turned down because of membership of a fascist organisation to be given a hearing about the reason for the refusal. That is unlike anything that would happen in other organisations. If the Conservative party decided not to accept someone, it would not hold a hearing to determine whether that was right and proper.
	Clause 19 also uses the words, exceptional hardship. We know what exceptional hardship means for someone who loses a jobthat concept is clearly understood. However, exceptional hardship for being refused membership of a union is not well defined. We do not know how a court would define it. That creates ambiguity for any union that tries to use clause 19, yet we have been told that the provision is straightforward. Will the ambiguity mean that unions would not use the provision, and therefore not have the power that we want to give them? If they used the provision, would they risk being taken before a tribunal?
	Why does the Bill use the same terms as those that relate specifically to somebody losing a job? Under existing law, which the Government introduced, it is illegal for an employer to sack somebody for non-membership of a trade union. We got rid of the closed shop many years ago in 1992. The reason for such protection is therefore not obvious.
	I also wish to ask about the amount of compensation. The sum of 6,900 for someone who manages to find a technical fault in the process whereby a union excludes or expels is a heavy penalty for the union, and brings us back to the British nationalists' advice to their members: If you're not a member of a union, then join. Those who look to be thrown out to get a big five-figure pay-out should make it known to the local union that they are BNP members. The BNP clearly perceives such legislation as a cash cow that can fund the party.

Ian Stewart: I agree with my hon. Friend, but does he know that the average award to employees who have successfully claimed unfair dismissal is much lower? The last I heard, compensation averaged 3,000. Why should there be a difference?

Tony Lloyd: My question is, why should there be compensation at all in the case that we are considering? However, as my hon. Friend says, why is it out of line with other forms of compensation?
	If new clause 6 were adopted instead of the current provisions, it would grant the flexibility that the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead seeks. It would provide for a much more general process that was consistent with the union rule book. The union rule book couldas the ASLEF rule book didspecify that
	no person shall be admitted into membership... if... they are members of, supporters of, or sympathisers with organisations which are diametrically opposed to objects of the union, such as a fascist organisation.
	That is clear, albeit general, and covers the problem of rotating party membership. It would grant genuine protection to those who sought it against arbitrary and unfair expulsion or exclusion because of membership of other partiesthe Labour party, the Conservative party and so on. The union would be restricted by the rule book and by statute, which would insist on proper reference to the due procedures of a trade union. There are also the principles of natural justice and the role of the certification officer, who has stronger powers in a trade union than the equivalent in a private company. I therefore believe that, for example, the Conservative trade unionist and the Labour trade unionist are protected. The new clause is specifically about unions invoking their rule book to get rid of or not accept those who are avowedly fascist. We should all share that ambition.
	I therefore recommend that my hon. Friend the Minister revert to the law before it was changed, as set out in new clause 6. If he cannot accept the new clause, he must demonstrate how the genuine doubts that have been raised about the workability of clause 19 can be properly addressed. We cannot find that we have not moved matters onthat would be a victory not only for those who want to amend the measure in the wrong way, but for the BNP and its supporters.

Lorely Burt: I welcome new clause 4, which the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) tabled. The idea of workplace environmental representatives constitutes reasonable and balanced policy, which is in line with our party's ethos on environmental sustainability, health and safety and the importance of corporate social responsibility. I note that the hon. Gentleman tabled a related amendment to the Climate Change Bill, which was not picked up. However, my party is very happy to support his new clause.
	New clause 6 would repeal outright those provisions in the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 that provide for individuals employed in industries that require union members not to be unreasonably excluded or expelled from any trade union. I have a great deal of sympathy for the comments that the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Tony Lloyd) made, but the proposal ignores the European Court of Human Rights judgment in ASLEF  v. the UK, to which he referred at some length. I will not go into that, but noble Lords from all parties in the other place worked hard to construct the current law, including the noble Lord Morris, so unfortunately we are not in a position to support new clause 6.
	Clause 19 may not be perfect, but the best brains from all parties in the Lords worked hard to draft amendments that were acceptable. Therefore, we cannot support amendment No. 3.
	Amendment No. 10 calls for an individual's membership of a political party to become relevant only if it fell within the 12 months prior to their application for membership of a trade union. I can completely understand the reasoning behind the amendment. If someone became a member of an unacceptable party such as the BNP when they were 15 and then wished to join a trade union at 40, it seems unfair that they should be penalised.
	However, there is another side to the argument. A trade union should have the right to expel whomever it feels it wants to expel. Imposing conditions such as those in amendments Nos. 10 and 11 would amount to the Government telling trade unions whom they could and could not have as members. If the Government starting telling political parties whom they could and could not have as members, they would not countenance such interference.

Michael Penning: But political parties can decide to exclude someone. If someone brought our party into disrepute, they could be excluded, including for something that they had done before joining. I am sure that the same is true for the Labour party, although I do not know about the Liberals.

Lorely Burt: I am not sure that I get the hon. Gentleman's drift. My point is that any party or trade union should have the right to expel whomever it feels should be expelled. Of course there need to be safeguards, however, and that is completely understood.
	The principle behind amendment No. 11 is the same. The trade unions should be allowed to exclude whomever they please. If we are talking about a new party that is not yet registered or a party that is changing its name in order to get round the rules, it should still be possible for trade unions to exclude whomever they feel it appropriate to exclude, without being placed in a straitjacket. It is up to trade unions to decide, just as it is up to political parties to decide.

Andrew Dismore: I rise to speak primarily to new clause 6, but I also want to say a few words about new clause 4, to which I am a signatory, in order to respond to the rather weird tirade that we heard from the Conservative Front Bench on the issue.
	Delivering the green agenda in the workplace can be done only in co-operation with the work force and the unions, even if it just means persuading people to turn the light bulbs off when they go home. To suggest that the activities set out in proposed new section 43A(2) to the Employment Act 2002, such as consulting on the workplace environment, should not be done in the firm's time, given that the environmental reps will have to negotiate with the employer about the issue, is frankly ludicrous. I therefore support new clause 4.
	My real reason for speaking is to address new clause 6 and the ASLEF judgment. The Joint Committee on Human Rights, which I chair, a little while ago published a scrutiny report on the issueour 17th report of the Session. I apologise to the House that the report was not tagged on to today's debate, which it perhaps ought to have been, because it deals at length with the ASLEF judgment and its implications. When the ASLEF case went through the European Court of Human Rights, the Government rightly accepted the need to amend the law in the light of that Strasbourg judgment. They consulted on two options, the first of which was effectively the option proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Tony Lloyd) and the second of which was not quite the option in clause 19. That was the right thing to do.
	When we scrutinised the issue in our Committee, my view was very much along the lines of my hon. Friend's view. Having practised in that area of law and written a number of union rule books, I thought that the existing safeguards were adequate. The historic safeguard is the fact that the union rulebook is a contract with the membership that is subject to enforcement through contractual law and natural justice, and more latterly through the certification officer process. We discussed the issue at some length, having the benefit of advice from our legal adviser and the opportunity to look at some of the other debates. I came to the conclusion that we simply could not rely on the traditional safeguards.
	The first point is about the possible impact on other political parties. The debate has focused on the BNP, but the risk is that the provisions could go beyond. We have heard a pretty anti-union tirade from the Conservative party tonight, which has reverted to type. It has been said that the Conservative party is not against the objectives and rules of most unions, but the way that it is going, one could easily see it slipping into being against such things, given its anti-union attitude.
	In the 1950s, communists were expelled from unions wholesale, and particularly from the electricians union. So this has happened before, but to the left, not the right. That is why we have to be very careful about proceeding on such a basis. The Communist party might be a fringe party now, rather than the industrial power that it was in the 1950s, but the Socialist Workers party, for example, is very active in some trade unions and organises in those unions on a political level. We have heard, too, about other campaigners being affected. For example, animal rights campaigners might set up a party to campaign in unions involved in scientific industries, which could cause significant difficulties.
	We need to consider what the ASLEF judgment said. It said what my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central has already described, but it also said that
	the State must nonetheless protect the individual against any abuse of a dominant position by trade unions
	and then set out the need for appropriate safeguards. It is interesting that when we discussed the issue in my Committee, Lord Morris, the former general secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union, an influential trade unionist in his time and a man with immense experience of trade unions, was concerned about the lack of additional safeguards. I should also pray in aid Lord Wedderburn of Charlton, my old law professor from decades ago and probably the doyenne of trade union law, who also expressed his concerns in debates in the House of Lords about the lack of additional safeguards. As a result, my Committee proposed an amendment. A member of my Committee from the Liberal Democrat Benches, Lord Lester, also proposed his own amendment, which Lord Wedderburn thought was rather good, because it was as narrow as we could get, while also concomitant with the need for appropriate safeguards.
	The problem with the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central is that, while it might rectify some of the incompatibilities, it does not deal with the need for appropriate safeguards. For example, none of the existing safeguardsthe contractual rulebook safeguard and the certification officer safeguardis available to deal with a person who is excluded from trade union membership in the first place, as opposed to having been expelled. Such a person cannot go to the certification officer, and they cannot go to court for a breach of the union rules.
	I hope that we will pay attention to the issue of human rights in these circumstances. Sometimes, human rights can be a little inconvenient for us on the left, as well. There is clearly a positive obligation under human rights law to provide safeguards against abuse, and that is why my Committee proposed an amendment. My problem is that clause 19, as it stands, goes rather further than that amendment. My hon. Friend has made some quite trenchant criticisms of certain aspects of clause 19. I disagree with his point about the rules and objectives of the unions. Having written union rule books, I think it is pretty clear that most of them have clear objectives at the start of the rules, and that the rules are clear. They normally deal with the process, rather than the politics.
	The part of clause 19 that states
	 if it is not reasonably practicable for the objective
	of the union
	to be ascertained
	contains some rather woolly wording that we do not actually need. Also, the part that deals with the process issues contains rather more detail than is necessary.
	Ideally, the Bill should not have started out in the House of Lords. We should have started it off in the Commons, and it could then have gone backwards and forwards. My main concern is that we are now caught between a rock and a hard placethat is, between my hon. Friend's new clause, which I do not think is human-rights compliant, and clause 19, which probably is human-rights compliant from the safeguards point of view, but which might go a little too far from the ASLEF judgment point of view. Neither option before us is ideal.
	My real concern is for the Bill as a whole. If we were to agree to my hon. Friend's new clause, we would inevitably end up engaging in ping-pong with the House of Lords, and the House of Lords has made it pretty clear that it is not going to go down the route suggested by my hon. Friend. We would therefore run the risk of losing all the good stuff in the Bill as well. On balance, therefore, my view is that we should leave clause 19imperfect though it isin the Bill.

Evan Harris: What the hon. Gentleman says is fair, but we on the Committee recognised that this was going to be a question of compromise. We have not got the exact wording that we wanted, but it is fair to say that, although it is not perfect, clause 19 is much closer to what we wanted. We were unanimous on thisConservatives, Liberal Democrats, peers, Labour Members, commoners and, indeed, the Cross Benchers. This is a complex issue, and the wording in the Bill is never going to suit everyone, but it is the best possible wording that we could get.

Andrew Dismore: I am not sure that it is the best possible wording that we could get, but, in practical terms, the risk involved in not accepting clause 19 as it stands is greater than the problems that would follow if we were to go down the route proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central in his new clause. Clause 19 is probably closer to the perspective of human rights, and the interpretation of the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the ASLEF judgment, than my hon. Friend's new clause.

Tony Lloyd: My hon. Friend has mentioned problems that would arise from the new clause with respect to members of other political parties. Which part of clause 19 would prevent a union from introducing into its rule book a provision that being a member of, say, the Labour party was incompatible with union membership?

Andrew Dismore: There is a catch-all provision in proposed new subsection (4G) relating to circumstances in which
	the decision to exclude or expel is taken unfairly,
	and the subsequent hardship provisions provide additional safeguards, which my hon. Friend's new clause would not do. The additional safeguards in clause 19 are the kind of safeguards that the Joint Committee on Human Rights report talked about, and that the ASLEF judgment hinted at. On balance, I think that we have to leave clause 19 in placeimperfect though it israther than adopting my hon. Friend's new clause, even though he and I wish to obtain the same objective in the end.

Stephen Crabb: I should like to speak to amendments Nos. 10 and 11, tabled in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly). By way of background, clause 19 gives trade unions the right to exclude or expel individuals on the basis of their membership of a political party, subject to several safeguards, which are set out in the relevant subsections. This was debated at some length in Committee, and numerous hon. Members participated in that part of the Committee proceedings, recognising the fundamental importance of the rights that were being debated. We recognised the potential conflict between two fundamental civil liberties: the right to freedom of association and an individual's right to a political belief, unhindered by arbitrary interference by public authorities.
	The bar on trade unions excluding or expelling individuals from membership is set out in section 174 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. That section was itself introduced as an amendment by section 14 of the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Act 1993. The section was subsequently amended again in considerable detail by the Employment Relations Act 2004. Those changes made it clear that it was lawful for trade unions to exclude or expel individuals on the ground of their political party activitiesthat is, their conduct. In Committee, we agreed with the right of unions to end membership on the ground of conduct, but not on the ground of belief. So, despite the best efforts of this House and of the other place, when passing that legislation to balance the competing rights of the individual and the trade unions, the European Court of Human Rightsin its decision on ASLEF  v. the United Kingdomfelt that we had not struck the right balance.
	We have been discussing new clause 6 and amendment No. 3, tabled in the name of the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Tony Lloyd). We believe that their combined effect would be to take us back to the pre-1992 position. We would have to disregard the decision in the ASLEF case, and to forget about the need even for a human rights dimension, in allowing trade unions to expel or exclude members at will. These proposals run contrary to the Conservative view of employee-employer relations. On one level, however, their effect would be to force the Government to reassess this whole area, and perhaps that is what hon. Members truly wish to legislate for.
	Attractive as that proposal might be, however, it is unfortunately unworkable. Our real concern with these amendments is that they would once again make quasi-legislation out of trade union rule books. In the past decade, we have moved away from that towards what must be the correct position: the rule book acting as a contract between the trade union and the employee. If we now seek to return to the old ways, we should force the courts into interpreting trade union rule books just as they interpret statute in employment proceedings. That would not only set the employment relations process back 10 or 15 years; it will also place the courts in a very difficult position and open the floodgates for further litigation.

Brian H Donohoe: Will the hon. Gentleman give away?

Stephen Crabb: I will not give way.
	Too many advances have been made since 1992 for us to return to that position. We therefore oppose those amendments.
	We accept the legal authority of the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the ASLEF case, but we would like to put on record our deep unease with it. To our mind, it marks a further erosion of personal civil liberties by an organisation whose remit is supposedly to protect them. Here we have a court of human rights reining in the freedoms of an individual.
	Amendment No. 10 seeks to place a limit on how far back a trade union is entitled to look into a member's past to find reasons to exclude or expel that person. I accept that this is a question of balancing interests, proportionately and in a common-sense fashion. We recognise that, with time, people change, that their views change and their actions are adapted. As we pointed out in Committee, membership of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament as a student in the '60s should not automatically allow a 50-year-old to be expelled from a trade union that represents workers in the nuclear industry

Brian H Donohoe: rose

Stephen Crabb: I am not giving way.
	In Committee, the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) was kind enough to give us a practical example, when he said:
	I was a communist when I was young, although I was not a party member. I was quite open about it. I can imagine a situation in which that could be used against me professionally. [ Official Report, Employment Public Bill Committee, 16 October 2008; c. 79.]
	We agree with his concern. The Bill's provisions seem at odds with a person's human rights, so our amendment would address that wrong by saying that party membership must have been within the 12 months prior to an individual's application for trade union membership. On the advice of a number of hon. Members in Committee, we have also tightened the drafting to include future party membership. We hope that that will satisfy other concerns that had been expressed. It seems unfair to us that the union's right to expel should last for ever. Amendment No. 10 would deal with that concern and I give notice of my intention to press it to a Division.
	Amendment No. 11 also addresses our ongoing concerns about the definition of what constitutes a political party, because, as things stand, there is no definition in the Bill, so we believe we are in real danger of enacting a clause that has a far more damaging effect than it should have. We need to ask at what point a person's associations become more indicative of their beliefs than their individual conduct or characteristics. Several members of the Committee noted that although they were members of one of the main political parties, they did not necessarily agree with the entirety of their party's views. We know that political parties are broad churches, but I fear that we are danger of tarring all with the same brush.
	The choice to become a member of a political party is an active choice and a definite action, but it might be inspired by any number of reasons. I wonder how many new Labour party members who joined around 1997 in the heyday of Mr. Blair now find themselves in a very different party, as we have seen this evening, putting forward 1970s-style trade union legislation. Clause 19 is a recipe for disaster.
	I agree with those hon. Members who believe that we should be worried about the British National party, but we may be missing the wood for the trees. We reminded members of the Committee that the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Frank Dobson) supported original legislation to protect communists and their fellow travellers from being hounded out of the unions, so although we can talk about countering the BNP, we must not think that legislation is the only means of doing so. It is not, and many other organisations could be caught in that legislative net.
	Given the position in which we find ourselves, we need carefully to regulate who will be caught, which is why we suggest limiting expulsion rights to registered members of political parties. We accept that the proposal has flawspersonally, I have real sympathy with some of the ideas expressed in Committee, especially on extreme political groups such as Combat 18 or the Militant Tendency, which would fall outside my definition of a political partybut we have to understand that we are debating this on the back of the ASLEF decision. Since 1993, as the Minister rightly noted in Committee, the unions have had the power to expel or exclude an individual on the basis of their conduct. The clause deals expressly with political party membershipthe very issue at stake in the ASLEF case.
	When we fall within the wide parameters of democracy, the spectrum of beliefs is very broad and the question becomes where we draw the line and who draws it. We must be careful not to allow the Bill to creep into areas that it is not designed to cover. The ASLEF decision dealt only with expulsion or exclusion on the basis of political party membership, not on the basis of conduct or association with a group. We must ensure that we draw the line at a reasonable place, and I believe that our amendment does just that. If we do not say that the provisions should apply to registered members of political parties, to whom will they applypeople who wear Nazi insignia or Che Guevara T-shirts or who are known to associate with extremists? I fear that we may end up with trade union witch hunts in which members who show even the slightest diversion from the party line find themselves out on their ear.
	As with much of the Bill, we are being forced to accept the lesser of two evils. For us, certainty is preferable. One thing is for sure: as things stand, clause 19 is inviting court cases to decide what constitutes a political partyand many extreme groups have shown themselves only too happy to go to court over such matters. The amendment will, I hope, provide less room for them to do so.

Ian McCartney: I rise to support clause 19. My hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Jon Cruddas)he has unfortunately left the Chamber for a few minutes, but has been in his place since the debate startedand I spent time in 1997 and 2007 working on an almost daily basis with Government lawyers, trade union lawyers and employers' lawyers to put right the failure of the last Conservative Government effectively to implement any European legislation relating to employment rights in the workplace. The hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mr. Crabb) is probably too young to remember the witch hunts of the 1970s and '80s against trade unionists sacked by their employers simply for joining a trade union. It was this Government in 1999 who put an end to that type of witch hunt, so protecting people's right to join a union and to encourage others to join it.
	I speak from a non-legal standpoint, but I am not putting across an anti-lawyer argument, as over the years in my time as a trade unionist, many lawyers helped me with advice and support. Indeed, Lord Wedderburn is a hero of mine. He has spent his life not only looking at the law in intellectual terms, but trying to implement it in a practical, common-sense way.
	There is no such thing as a perfect piece of legislation. We have to ensure that once enacted, it achieves the objectives in a way that maximises support for it within the community and wider society. In my view, we are righting a wrong against ASLEF and others. No one has so far congratulated ASLEF and other trade unions up and down this country on spending a lifetime opposing fascism, especially when it infiltrates their organisations. We should congratulate ASLEF on sticking to its guns and winning an important legal point.
	The point that ASLEF won was not to do with its rule book per se. Instead, it related to a piece of legislation introduced by the Conservatives in 1992 which was a breach of article 11 of the European convention on human rights. A Conservative Government implemented bad legislation. On behalf of the European Court of Human Rights, we are attempting to implement a new piece of legislation to get rid of what happened in 1992 which was so damaging to ASLEF and others.
	No doubt if we pass the Bill, all unions should, as a matter of course, look at the rule book to ensure that it is compatible with changes set out in clause 19 so that they can use it effectively now and in the future to protect themselves, their members and workers in the workplace against fascist activity by individuals or collective groups of individuals, whether they are in the BNP or other organisations.

Graham Stuart: A Labour Member mentioned that Communist party members were driven out of trade unions in the 1950s. Is the right hon. Gentleman comfortable with the fact that Communist party members and others could be driven out using this legislation?

Ian McCartney: I think that the hon. Gentleman is about my age. He should have realised what was happening in the 1950s. There were witch hunts against communists, but not by trade unions or trade unionists; they were carried out by right-wing politicians here and in America, and of course blacklists were introduced by Conservative employers which lasted all the way through to 1999. This Government got rid of blacklists as well. There is a history of people being blacklisted and blackballed, but not for their political views, in the way that we are talking about the BNP and fascists, but because of their capacity and willingness to represent working-class people in the workplace against employers who did them down. If the hon. Gentleman wants to talk history, he should get it straight.
	The issue is simple. Does the proposal accepted in the Lords achieve the objectives? First, does it achieve the aims set out by the Court in ASLEF  v. UK? Secondly, in achieving that objective, does it give trade unions the opportunity in a practical way to take account of changing circumstances in the future, both in terms of fascist organisations and individuals in the way in which they organise and operate, or attempt to do so, in the wider community and workplace? If Lord Wedderburn says to me that that is exactly what the proposal does, with the appropriate safeguards, then I will back him on any occasion. If Bill Morris, a colleague of mine, says from his perspective as a former general secretary of a union that has a history of shop stewards being blacklisted and undermined in the workplace, that the proposal is the most effective way forward and achieves the objectives set out when ASLEF appealed in the court, we should accept it as a victory.
	I know of no piece of legislation passed in this place on employment rights or the protection of trade unions that will not come under scrutiny or challenge. The reality is that the Bill will be challenged, as the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 was challenged. We thought that the Act protected pupil barristers, but barristers went to the High Court and had the legislation overturned. We thought that that decision was wrong, and we came back to the House and amended the Act to protect workers from being undermined.
	When lawyers disagree with each other, it is no reason for us to lose our nerve and not do the right thing by ASLEF and other trade unions. The Bill overwhelmingly does the right thing. We need to do what it sets out, not just because the Court told us to do so, but because ASLEF was right in the first instance in protecting itself and its members from fascist organisations and fascist individuals.
	I shall support clause 19. Let us get on with the task that ASLEF set us all so many years ago. Let us organise a victory against fascism and racism in the workplace, and encourage people to join unions. Clause 19 will enable many people out there who are not union members to take comfort in the knowledge that they can join a union without being victims of abuse from fellow members who are racists.

Evan Harris: One cannot but admire the speech that we have just heard. I agree with everything that was said by the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), and I thank the Government for making this concession after hearing what was said in the House of Lords. They have a big majority in this place and they could have stuck to their guns, in which case we would probably have had ping-pong. It should be noted that they recognised the existence of an alternative way that is clearly better than their original proposal.
	I want to make two points. The first concerns the Court judgment. It should be borne in mind that the Court held that the relevant provision in United Kingdom law which prohibited a trade union from expelling a member for membership of a political party failed to strike the right balance between the right of the union to freedom of association and the right of the individual to freedom of association.
	We have to recognise that human rights must sometimes be accorded to people with whom we find it difficult to sympathise. That is the measure of human rights. It is very easy to grant human rights and civil liberties to people with whom we agree all the time, and whom we find pleasant and amenable. It is much harder to stretch the definition, and the test of whether we have the right human rights culture is whether we extend itwhen it is reasonable to do soto people with whom we encounter difficulties.
	As is made clear in a report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, the judgment stated:
	The UK had gone too far in its protection of the... member against measures taken against him by his union, at the expense of the right
	of members to choose. We noted:
	The ASLEF judgment unequivocally recognises that trade unions enjoy, under Article 11 ECHR, a right to freedom of association which includes the prima facie freedom to set up their own rules concerning conditions of membership. The judgment, however
	this is why I oppose the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Tony Lloyd)
	is equally clear that this right of trade union autonomy is not unlimited: the Court clearly envisages a positive obligation on the State under Article 11 ECHR to protect the freedom of association of the individual against abuse of a dominant position by trade unions.
	In our recommendation, we argued that safeguards were needed in addition to those in the original Bill
	to strike a 'fair balance' between, on the one hand, the Article 11 right of a trade union to control its membership and, on the other, the Article 11 rights of the individual, including the right not to be excluded or expelled from a union arbitrarily or in circumstances that would result in exceptional hardship.
	Those words are taken from the judgment.

Ian Stewart: The hon. Gentleman has just explained, in terms as clear and concise as any I have heard, that no unionor, indeed, any organisation, but no union in this instanceshould be allowed arbitrarily to dismiss, expel or exclude any person who wishes to join that organisation or remain a member of it. However, that is not what this provision is about. It is about circumstances in which a union has clear rules, objectives and aims encapsulated in a rule book, agreed by its members, to the effect that no individual who holds views contrary to those rules, aims and objectives should be allowed to join, or that any such individual should be excluded when the union discovers that that is the case. In this instance, we are citing fascism.

Evan Harris: I have only a couple of minutes

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Interventions must be brief.

Evan Harris: I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	The hon. Gentleman is right, but there need to be additional safeguards beyond those that he has identified. I think that clause 19 captures them pragmatically, and in the best way possible.
	I am concerned about the position of the Conservatives. Either they accept the ECHR judgment or they do not. The hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mr. Crabb) praised the judgment but then attacked what it led to, which is where we are now.

Jonathan Djanogly: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Evan Harris: I had better not.
	I find it hard to decide whether the Conservatives just pick and choose their human rights. The hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr. Stuart) appeared to compare the BNP's racist ideology with communism. There is no comparison between the threat to individuals' welfare, in the workplace or outside, posed by the racist ideology of parties such as the BNP and any such threat from the ideology of communists, however much the hon. Gentleman may disagree with that. That is why although my sympathies, as a member of the British Medical Association, which is as close as I can get to being a member of a trade union in my profession, are entirely with the trade union movement in terms of its perspective, my sympathies and support are also with the Government on the wording of their clause.

Patrick McFadden: Although I wish to concentrate on new clause 6, let me first speak briefly to new clause 4. I agree that environmental representatives are a valuable and relatively new development. Their emergence shows that unions are seeking to develop new services for their members, and trade unions have a valid and legitimate voice on this agenda. I also believe that that voice can contribute significantly to business success. My Department is producing a joint statement with the TUC and the CBI, which will focus on the benefits that lay union representatives can bring to the workplace. That statement will incorporate case study research, and we plan to publish it early next year. The issue in question is whether to place these representatives on a statutory footing. Members may not be too surprised to learn that I believe it is premature to do so, but I welcome their development, and I encourage ACAS and environmental quality representatives to work on guidance in this area.
	Let me turn to new clause 6 and clause 19. Clause 19 seeks to amend section 174 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 to bring UK law into line with the European Court of Human Rights judgment in the ASLEF  v. UK case. That is our intention, not the introduction of wider reform of trade union law.
	I would like to begin by setting out the motivations behind the clause and its intentions. As my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Tony Lloyd) and other Members have pointed out, the case that gave rise to this clause was about a trade union that desired to expel a British National party member. Abhorrence of the BNP is widely shared in this House, and many of us, myself included, have campaigned against it and will continue to do so. This clause was debated for many hours in the other place, and it was discussed for longer than any other in Committee as well; it has, in fact, been discussed more than any other clause. That is understandable because although the case that gave rise to the clause was about the BNP, as Members have pointed out the provision in question does not mention the BNP and is a more general power to expel or exclude people from trade unions on grounds of membership of a political party. There is an important point here, because Members have raised the issue of conduct, and I want to make it clear to the House that expulsion on grounds of political conduct was already legal before the ASLEF judgment. The change the ASLEF judgment made was, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) has pointed out, to say that our law was incompatible with article 11 of the European convention on human rights on freedom of association, precisely because it did not have these rights of expulsion on grounds of membership of a political party.

Anne Moffat: My union has the ability, on the basis of behaviour, to expel people by means of the rule book if they do not abide by the rules, but does my hon. Friend agree that, although these are two different sets of law, it is a fair and reasonable comparison to say that we can prevent people from coming into this country and expel them from the country on the grounds of religious hatred, but we cannot expel people from a trade union on the grounds of racial hatred?

Patrick McFadden: Provided that certain processes are followed and certain safeguards are kept to, the Bill will give unions the ability to expel people on grounds of membership of a political party.

David Winnick: Two hon. Members have justified clause 19, as the Minister will do. The GMB, of which I am a long-standing member, has sent us a note on various items. Its general secretary, who presumably knows what he is talking about, states:
	Clause 19... is totally inadequate.
	He goes on to say that it will provide BNP members with
	more protection than any other trade unionist and unions would be financially liable for any loss of earnings a BNP member might incur.
	That is why new clause 6, although I understand all its difficulties, is a better route to take to exclude the sort of people that unions want to exclude than clause 19.

Patrick McFadden: I cannot accept the verdict that my hon. Friend read out, which says that clause 19 is totally inadequate. The ECHR judgment centred on balancing individual freedoms with freedom of association as set out in article 11 and found that, against that backdrop, our law, as it stands, was not compatible with article 11. It did balance those things, because it said:
	Article 11 cannot be interpreted as imposing an obligation on associations...to admit whosoever wishes to join. Where associations are formed by people, who, espousing particular values or ideals, intend to pursue common goals, it would run counter to the very effectiveness of the freedom at stake if they had no control over their membership.
	The judgment went on to say that
	democracy does not simply mean that the views of a majority must always prevail: a balance must be achieved which ensures the fair and proper treatment of minorities and avoids any abuse of a dominant position...Such abuse might occur, for example, where exclusion or expulsion from a trade union was not in accordance with union rules or where the rules were wholly unreasonable or arbitrary or where the consequences of exclusion or expulsion resulted in exceptional hardship.
	It continued:
	the Court is not persuaded...that the...expulsion impinged in any significant way on Mr Lee's exercise of freedom of expression or his lawful political activities...As there was no closed shop agreement...there was no apparent prejudice suffered by the applicant in terms of his livelihood or in his conditions of employment.

Rob Marris: May I caution my hon. Friend and neighbour in interpreting that judgment and backing clause 19? Clauses 1 and 2 seek to get rid of the statutory dispute resolution procedure, which was introduced by the Employment Act 2002. When that legislation was going through ParliamentI was on the Standing Committee that considered itmany of us cautioned that it was completely unworkable, as it has proved to be. I issue the same caution to my hon. Friend tonight: clause 19 is unworkable.

Patrick McFadden: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, but I do not believe the clause is unworkable. If he allows me to develop the point, I will talk about the safeguards that we have built in and the proposals to which we have listened in the debate on this matter.
	As has been said, when we consulted on changing the law in this regard, we canvassed two options, both of which introduced changes relating to the particular part of section 174 that deals with political party membership. When we introduced the Bill, we thought that the more deregulatory option A was the better approach to follow. As has been mentioned, in subsequent debate in the other place, when strong representations were made by Lord Morris of Handsworth and others, and in the deliberations of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, a strong case was made for more safeguards against potential abuse.
	Hon. Members have cited the Joint Committee's report. It said that expulsions should be permitted if
	the decision to exclude or expel was taken in accordance with the union's rules and a fair procedure
	and
	the consequences of exclusion or expulsion would not result in exceptional hardship.
	It made a reference to the union's rules not being wholly unreasonable, but went on to say that that
	may be regarded as an invitation to litigate the reasonableness of a union's rules.
	It therefore did not press that point.
	Hon. Members may say that in all those representations a judgment is made about the clause as it stands. Let me lay to rest some misconceptions about the changes that we have made to the clause. It is certainly not the case that the Government are somehow refusing to legislate in line with the judgment; we believe that it is right to legislate in line with the judgment. Members can be expelled on grounds of political conduct, but we are now talking about membership of political parties. It is not the caseas has been reported, including todaythat the changes will mean automatic compensation for those expelled or excluded. If trade unions act in line with the clause, compensation will not be necessary.
	Lord Morris took part in the debate on the clause, as amended, and concluded:
	Three key principles have been met: Britain will be able to comply with its statutory obligations, trade unions will have freedom and democratic rights in respect of their rule books, while the ability to discipline their members has been preserved, and members' rights to natural justice will be safeguarded. On that basis...I wish the Bill well on its way.[ Official Report, House of Lords, 2 June 2008; Vol. 702, c. 21.]
	I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central that the question is not whether we legislate in line with the European convention on human rights, but how we do so. Clause 19 is compatible with the convention, especially given that we are not dealing specifically with the BNPlegislation must be applicable to all members of the public.
	New clause 6 proposes a third wayif my hon. Friend will forgive me for putting it like thaton top of our two options. It would delete clause 19 and repeal section 174 and related sections of the 1992 Act. The Court did not examine section 174 more widely, but focused heavily on the particular facts of the case, which concerned the expelled member's political party membership and its compatibility with the union's rules and political orientation. I appreciate my hon. Friend's intentions, and I agree that we have a shared objective, but the Government do not think it necessary to extrapolate the Court's reasoning in the way that new clause 6 does in order to legislate in line with the judgment.
	My hon. Friend asked whether ASLEF could have expelled Mr. Lee under clause 19. I repeat that clause 19 does not mean that names of political parties have to be specified in the rule book. The important question is whether a trade union can use clause 19, and the procedures built into it, to expel or exclude members. It sets out a process whereby unions can act in line with the judgment. Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 would restrict the operation of the clause too much. How is a union to check exactly how many months a person has been a member of a political party?
	When the Conservative party was in government, it introduced legislation on the rights of political parties, but did not produce the definition that Conservative Members are calling for tonight. How is a union supposed to police registration systems around the world? We intend to legislate in line with the judgment in a way that trade unions can use, but we do not intend to restrict that so much that the legislation is impossible to operate in practice. For that reason, if the Opposition press their amendments, I shall ask my colleagues to resist them. On clause 19, the Government have listened and responded to points that have been made. It is the best way to operate.

Tony Lloyd: The Minister has made his case. I know that the Bill will be passed unamended tonight, because there is not the strength to do otherwise. Will he give us an absolute guarantee that he will keep the legislation under review? We share the same objectives. What is important is that the Bill is effective in achieving them.

Patrick McFadden: Of course, as with all legislation, we will monitor how the Bill operates, but we believe that this is the right way forward.
	 Question put and negatived.

Clause 19
	  
	Exclusion or expulsion from trade union for membership of a political party

Amendment proposed: No. 10, page 18, line 15, at end add
	'(4) In section 177 (interpretation and other supplementary provision), after subsection (2) there is inserted
	(2A) For the purposes of section 174 an individual will only be considered to be a member of a political party if for the 12 months prior to the date of an individual's application for membership of the trade union or at any point thereafter that individual is registered with the political party as a member.'. [Mr. Djanogly.]
	 Question put, That the amendment be made:
	 The House proceeded to a Division.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.

The House having divided: Ayes 147, Noes 322.

Question accordingly negatived.

Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As you know, yet again, the majority of new clauses and amendments tabled on Report by Back-Bench Government Members and Opposition Members have not been debated. Five new clauses and four amendments have been debated; eight new clauses and eight amendments have not. May I ask whether you, your co-Deputy Speakers and Mr. Speaker report to the Leader of the House on the amendments and new clauses that are not reached? The Leader of the House has assured the House that she is seeking to do something to ensure that the process is improved, but we have seen no action. May I ask that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, consider with Mr. Speaker reporting, yet again, another Bill where amendments and new clauses have not been discussed?

Madam Deputy Speaker: The occupant of the Chair is governed by the rules of the Houseby the motion before the House. If the hon. Gentleman has concerns, and I understand what he has said, I suggest that he raise them with the Leader of the House. It is important that we get on with the remaining time and discuss the Third Reading of the Bill.
	 Order for Third Reading read.

Patrick McFadden: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	The Bill covers a number of significant issues. It reforms dispute resolution at work, minimum wage legislation, employment agencies legislation and, as we have just discussed, trade union membership. It brings together elements of the Government's employment relations strategy to increase protection for vulnerable workers and reduce costs for law-abiding businesses. The Bill gives a better deal to low-paid workers and to agency workers who have been denied the national minimum wage against their rights. The Bill reflects on 10 years' experience of the national minimum wage and seeks to build on it.

Ian McCartney: rose

Patrick McFadden: I pay tribute to the tremendous contribution made to the minimum wage legislation by my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), who has been present throughout the debates this evening. I am happy to give way to him.

Ian McCartney: I thank my hon. Friend for his kindness towards me in today's debate and previous ones. Will he meet my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) and me to talk about the enforcement of employment tribunal awards for vulnerable workers? Will he have further discussions with me, Public Concern at Work and the CAB about the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 and what we need to do in relation to that?

Patrick McFadden: I will, of course, be happy to meet my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), and to have those further discussions.
	The Bill's provisions on dispute resolution stem from Michael Gibbons's independent review of dispute resolution in the workplace, published last year. The provisions will lighten the burden on workers and business by encouraging the resolution of more workplace disputes earlier and informally. The tribunal route provides important access to justice and it must be available. However, if we can resolve disputes sooner than we would through a tribunal, that will often be better for all concerned.
	The Bill makes changes that will enable us to move away from the current, rigid legal process for resolving disputes, which, as Michael Gibbons found, has led to more claims being taken to employment tribunals than may have been necessary. We are putting in place a package that encourages employers and employees to resolve their issues earlier and informally. As I said earlier, we are expanding ACAS's role in that area and we have allocated additional funds to ACAS so that it can fulfil its expanded role. The package includes statutory changes, revision of the ACAS code on disciplinary grievance procedures, and substantial investment to improve advice to employees. We estimate that, once in force and fully operational, the measures could save business up to 170 million a year.
	The Bill introduces a new enforcement framework for the national minimum wage, involving the introduction of a new civil penalty that can be levied against all non-compliant businesses. The framework also introduces a fairer method of calculating arrears. Until now, an employee who was paid less than the minimum wage over a number of years would lose out on the uprating of the minimum wage even if the arrears were restored. The Bill changes that; it makes non-payment of the minimum wage act, in effect, as an interest-free loan from the employee to the employer and introduces a fairer system of arrears by making sure that they are paid at the prevailing national minimum wage rate.

Lorely Burt: Does the Minister not regret, like me, the passing of the opportunity that the Bill offered? We could have strengthened enforcement to make sure that rogue employers paid arrears, and that ex-employees could not take redress other than through the civil courts.

Patrick McFadden: I do not believe that we have missed opportunities in this Bill. We have taken the opportunity to do two thingsto strengthen the system for paying arrears to workers who are not paid the minimum wage and to strengthen the penalty regime for employers who do not pay the minimum wage.
	The Bill makes offences under the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 triable in the Crown court as well as the magistrates court and strengthens the powers of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs to investigate criminal offences. The aim of these provisions is to create a clearer deterrent to non-compliance with the minimum wage and to provide a fairer outcome for workers who have suffered a loss in real terms as a result of underpayment of the minimum wage.

Simon Hughes: There are many good things in the BillI do not argue with that. However, does the Minister accept that it does not change the fact that it is still not compulsory for there to be a conciliation process between employer and employee in all cases of prospective dismissal?

Patrick McFadden: We thought that it was right to give ACAS a power to offer conciliation so that it can use these increased resources in cases where it can make the greatest difference.
	The Bill introduces an improved enforcement framework for employment agency standards, making offences under the Employment Agencies Act 1973 each-way offences and defining investigative powers. Combined with the minimum wage provisions, the Bill provides more effective enforcement and greater support to vulnerable agency workers. It also promotes compliance, which we should never forget is in the interests not only of vulnerable workers but of the vast majority of law-abiding, decent businesses. Among other things, the Bill makes the changes that we have discussed, and which I will not go over again, in response to the European Court judgment in ASLEF  v. UK.
	I am pleased that as we approach the end of our deliberations in this House, most major stakeholders have broadly welcomed the Bill and that the broad consensus on its elements has been reflected in most of our debates. I believe that it has been improved during its passage through both Houses, and I am grateful to hon. Members on both sides of the House who have contributed to the proceedings.
	The Bill will achieve two main things: it will reduce costs and burdens for businesses and for workers in terms of dispute resolution and strengthen enforcement of the law, particularly for low-paid and vulnerable workers. In that sense, it benefits individuals, those who represent workers, and good business. I commend the Bill to the House.

Jonathan Djanogly: This Government have so far introduced some 18 Acts and more than 280 statutory instruments dealing directly with employment laws and regulations, and we are now debating another one. Their continual tinkering with employee rights and employer duties has left business and individuals confused. The Bill was originally called the employment simplification Bill, so the change was fully justified given that it involves no simplification whatsoever. It is hardly surprising that if one reviews the figures for employment tribunal cases, it is clear that small businesses make up the overwhelming majority of respondents. Many small businesses are no more sophisticated than the employees claiming against them. They do not have the large human resources departments or teams of lawyers that are needed to decipher the tangled web of employment laws that the Government continue to create.
	Even while the Bill has been making its way through the House, a further, under-the-table deal was done between Labour and the trade unions to tamper with the laws on agency workers in a way that could be very damaging for our already over-burdened businesses. While that is hardly surprising from a Government who are almost entirely funded by the trade unions, it has got to a point where even the ex-Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform seems to have recognised that the Government have gone too far. Prior to his promotion, he admitted that there was a
	need to challenge the automatic assumption that the only way to deal with exploitation in the workplace is by passing new laws.
	I hope for the sake of employers across the country that Lord Mandelson has read his handover brief thoroughly, not least because, given the Labour amendments tabled, it looks as if we will need to prepare for a union legislative onslaught as the TUC calls in its Warwick II promises. Just to recap: we heard proposals today to protect employees taking industrial action from dismissal; to prevent trade unions from being sued by employers suffering loss as a consequence of industrial action; to provide union members with a dual awarddamages and reinstatementwhere they are dismissed for striking; to shift the responsibility for ensuring ballots are properly conducted from unions to employers; to prevent businesses using so-called strike breakers; to provide special privileges not to work for so-called union workplace environmental reps; and to abolish all restrictions on trade unions' rights to expel or exclude members

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. May I just remind the hon. Gentleman that on Third Reading we are discussing the contents of the Bill, not what might have been in it?

Jonathan Djanogly: I thank you for that guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker. With that in mind, I would now like to discuss the provisions of the Bill.
	The Bill was extensively debated in another place, as well as in Committee. I put on record the thanks of all hon. Members for the work that the other place did on the Bill. It was substantially reviewed by the time it came to us. However, we have some problems with aspects of it. Mention was made of how the Government have taken us back to the position before the earlier provisions came into force. Our concerns focused on clause 3, and the changes that it would make to the employment tribunal system. The new ACAS code would remove the overly legalistic system that arose, despite the Government's assertions to the contrary, from the Employment Act 2002. The ACAS code is now principle-based, but we could be in danger of elevating procedure over substance. Tribunals have the power to vary awards based on non-compliance with procedure and we think that there could be a dichotomy. If one acts in the spirit of a principle-based code, could one never fall foul of that procedure? In Committee, we asked the Minister to give us some statistics, and to discuss the various awards that the tribunals had granted, but those were not forthcoming. There is a perception among businesses that tribunals are disproportionately inclined towards the employee, and we share some of those concerns about the Bill.
	The second part of the Bill deals with the national minimum wage. We support the national minimum wage, and a continual monitoring of legislative provisions that deal with it. We also support action to ensure that workers who receive the minimum wage do not lose out in real terms when they are owed arrears as a result of underpayment. The previous law gave almost no deterrent to underpayment, so the change in the Bill is welcome.
	We had various concerns about the extension of powers of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs, and we still have those concerns. While the proposal to allow enforcement officers to remove documents under clause 10 is accepted, we do not accept that the balance in the Bill is as good as it could have been.
	I urge the Minister to give maximum publicity to the changes in the implementation of the national minimum wage provisions. All employers must be given full opportunity to assess their companies and correct any failings in payment of the minimum wage before the new penalties are imposed.
	We had a full debate during all stages of consideration of the Bill, including this evening, on clause 19, which relates to the European Court of Human Rights judgment on the ASLEF case. Although we believe that it was appropriate for the Government to respond to the decision of the European Court of Human Rights, we continue to have genuine concerns about clause 19 as it stands. Only time will tell, but I predict that court cases will derive from the provisions with which we have ended up.
	The definitions of membership of a political party and of political party remain outstanding issues, which will lead to further court cases. The debates on the Bill's progress through both Houses show that the Government have been slightly inclined to burrow their head in the sand when faced with reasoned argument. Worse, they legislate for perceived threats or concerns, without hard evidence to back up the need for legislative intervention. That could not only be expensive in terms of taxpayers' money and the House's time, but has made for a weaker Bill than it should be.
	Although we agree with the Bill's overall aims, concerns remain about its scope and implementation. Moreover, the Government have failed, once again, to address properly the concerns of business when they are mounting by the day. As it stands, the Bill will be a fitting testament to a vacuous and empty Government, who have taken a short-term view and failed to push forward genuine change.
	British business has been crying out for reform to employment laws, which are making them increasingly uncompetitive, and for protection from vexatious employee claims. Surely we could have done more than simply give unions the power to expel members for their political beliefs. To that extent, the Bill is a missed opportunity.

John McDonnell: I welcome the elements of the Bill that deal with dispute resolution, and especially the provisions that cover the national minimum wage. However, I join the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) in expressing concern about not reaching many amendments about the minimum wage.
	Any Bill's implementation must be properly resourced. Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs has continuing concerns about the number of officers who are required and have been recruited so far to implement the minimum wage provisions. Earlier this year, the Minister promised us that there would be at least 20 extra officers and a 50 per cent. increase in expenditure on enforcement. I understand that those 20 officers have not been recruited so far. At best, we are up to 17, possibly 18, this week. Someat least 10are staff who are already in post, so there seems to be an element of double counting. I am therefore worried about whether there are adequate resources to implement the Bill.
	Although the minimum wage provisions are welcome, they go nowhere far enough in some sectors of industry to address the genuine problems of low pay. I deeply regret not reaching the amendments about the minimum wage for seafarers. Let me remind hon. Members of the implications of that. On the vessel Daroja, owned by Marlow Navigation, which sails between Aberdeen and Lerwick, a Filipino worker is paid 295 a month. On the AHTS Survarna, an Indian seaman is paid 1.63 an hour. That is not acceptable.

Mr. Speaker: Order. My father was a merchant seaman all his life and I have some sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but it is not in the Bill. On Third Reading, we must talk about the contents of the Bill.

John McDonnell: On that basis, I simply say that the provisions are not strong enough to deal with such abuse of workers in this country, and it needs to be tackled in future legislation.

Lorely Burt: Liberal Democrat Members welcome the Bill in generalit certainly improves employment law. I should like to pay a small tribute to colleagues in the other place who scrutinised it thoroughly before it came here. That has made our work a great deal lighter.
	Nevertheless, at the risk of trying your patience, Mr. Speaker, I want to mention a couple of things that we have not been able to discuss, including the mariners and the loss of the opportunity not only to safeguard the minimum wage for staff in the hospitality industry, which the Conservative party proposed, but to strengthen public disclosure of whistleblowing allegations and, most importantly, to help employees to secure the implementation of awards for the national minimum wage.
	I will move on to concentrate on what we have achieved in the Bill, which is a great deal. It has been described at length by the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly), so I will just mention the work that we have done on behalf of low-paid workers and agency workers and the improved dispute resolution procedures for employees and employers alike. We support clause 19, which we feel represents the best balance of freedom of association and the European Court of Human Rights requirements that could be achieved among all the parties.
	Although we have had our moments, all parties have worked together to improve employment relations. We are happy to support the Bill and, to use the Minister's words in quoting the noble Lord Morris, we wish it well on its way.

Richard Shepherd: I, too, am in some difficulty, in the sense that when one weighs up a Bill, as amended, on Third Reading, one has to reflect on the processes by which we have arrived at the Bill as amended.
	I was pleased to hear the tribute that the Minister paid to the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney). I am also delighted to hear that he is pleased to see the right hon. Gentleman anytime for a cup of tea and a discussion about important issues. That no doubt includes new clauses 12 and 13, which were not reached and which concern matters to which the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) alluded in a point of order.
	We are in a difficult position. Do I believe that the process by which we have arrived at the Bill as amended is right? If the House cannot debate whole areas of a Bill, how can I attest that it has been properly constructed? The guillotine, over which we have no control, was designed in such a way that matters that pertain directly to the Bill, such as open justice on tribunal cases, were never debated in Committee or even reached here, because of the constraints of the guillotine motion on Report. That is why I have to weigh up whether the process is sufficiently legitimate to enable me to support the Bill.
	There will be many people outside the Chamber who will not understand how we cannot discuss matters that relate directly to the contents of a Bill. Tribunals being open and their processes being known are fundamental principles of English justice. The Governmentor rather, the preceding Departmentwiped that out with a statutory instrument.
	The right hon. Member for Makerfield said that the Minister had invited him to tea when he was the lead Minister on those parts of employment law that relate to public interest disclosure. He said that it was crucial to put in the public domain things that would otherwise have remained secretthat was about corporate governance, employment and the protection of people. None of that was allowed to be debated, however, because of a guillotine.
	In the past four weeks the House has conducted hardly any business, because the Government entirely control the timetable and the nature of the business that comes before us. They presented the House with a glorious opportunity to look at key issues of employment law, but that opportunity has now gone. What we needed, at least on Third Reading, was some form of undertaking that justice should be open. The retreat from open justice by this Government is becoming a scandal.
	I will not oppose the Bill, because I believe that there is sufficient provision in it to justify supporting it, but I regret deeply that we cannot discuss matters that are relevant to all our constituents, from wherever we come. That is shaming to the House.

Simon Hughes: This is an important area of legislation and, as the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) said, there has been a huge amount of legislation on these matters. I want to follow on from where the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) left off. There are five areas of importance in the Bill, and we had some debate on all of them on Report. Those who were privileged to serve on the Committee were able to explore them in more detail but, as is always the case, that involved only a minority of Members. Over the years, many of us have taken an interest in many of the matters that have been touched on in the Bill.
	Some of the outcomes of the deliberations in the House of Lords, and in the Commons so far, have been good, but I have to share the frustration that the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills has just expressed, and which I ventilated when I raised a point of order earlier, that there has been no opportunity to explore some of the matters in the Bill or to test whether they are as valid as they could have been. I want to concentrate on two of those areas.
	The first area, which covers the first seven clauses of the Bill, deals with dispute resolution. I have had a meeting with the Minister on this matter, for which I was grateful. He knows that I have taken an interest in this, and I have also raised the matter in Adjournment debates in the House. I am concerned that the Bill, as it stands, still does not deal with one of the areas in which the worker often feels that he or she does not get a fair shout. Changes to the dispute resolution procedure are proposed in clauses 1 to 6. Variations have been made over the yearsthese proposals undo the changes we made four years agoas to how much should be optional, how much should be procedural, and the extent to which complying with the procedure should make a dismissal unlawful. However, there is still no automatic right to a dispute resolution procedure for someone who is dismissed summarily. There are many people up and down the land, in small and large firms, who, as a result of this legislation, will still be able to go to work and find themselves dismissed with no right to any dispute resolution procedure in the workplace. They can take their case to an industrial tribunal but, in four fifths of the cases that get to a tribunal, the employee does not succeed. Furthermore, in many cases, the tribunals and the higher courts will say that such cases fall within the band of a reasonable decision taken by the employer.
	Many workers do not feel that they are getting a fair deal yet. It is disappointing that, when the Government looked at the statutory dispute resolution procedures and introduced the changes in clauses 1, 2 and 3, they did not consider going back to the beginning of the procedure and providing for access to the statutory dispute resolution procedures from the beginning of the process.
	Clause 3 allows the awards that can be granted to be varied and provides for a financial penalty. Bluntly, however, a financial penalty is not much use if, at the end of the day, the person loses their job. If someone is dismissed, the chance of getting back to work is very small, certainly reduced, and the person might be out of work for a long time.
	Clause 5 provides for conciliation before the bringing of proceedings, but it is clear that we have moved from having a set of obligatory procedures to an optional procedurefrom shall act to
	may endeavour to promote a settlement.
	Conciliation officers do a good job. ACAS, based in my constituency, does a good job; it has been lauded on both sides of the House, and everyone is glad that it is there. It takes many disputes away from the headlines and improves many people's lives. It would be preferable, however, if the Government recognised that significant injustices are not yet dealt with.
	Today's deliberations and the fact that Parliament has been able to debate less than half of what it wanted to debate will mean, as the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) said, that we will have to return to these mattersand soon. Only part of the opportunity has been taken; sadly, part of it has been significantly missed.
	I end where the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills started: unless we change our procedures so that Parliament, not the Government, determines the business, we will never be able to do our constituents the proper service that they expect us to do. Parliament, not the Government, should decide Parliament's business; we need to change that in order to get the balance right.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

PETITION

Violence Against Women

Edward Timpson: I wish to present a petition on behalf of members of the Cheshire federation of the women's institute concerning violence against women across the UK. Each year, 3 million women across the UK experience rape, domestic violence, forced marriage, stalking, sexual exploiting, trafficking or other forms of violence. The women's institute is concerned that there is vision for eliminating violence against women, as there appears to be an assumption that the abuse of women and girls is a fact of life.
	The petitioners attracted the support of 14 signatures and the petition was co-ordinated by the members of the Cheshire federation of the women's institute. It reads:
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to stand by the UK's commitment to afford women and girls their basic human right to live free from violence, and its threat, by taking steps to eliminate violence against women.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	 Following is the full text of the petition:
	 [ The Petition of members of the C heshire  f ederation of the  w omen' s  i nstitute, declares that violence against women is a cause and consequence of women's inequality and that the Government is not doing enough to prevent violence against women from occurring; and further declares that there seems to be a mentality that abuse of women and girls is a fact of life .
	 The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to stand by the UK's commitment to afford women and girls their basic human right to live free from violence, and its threat, by taking steps to eliminate violence against women .
	 And the Petitioners remain, etc. ]
	 [P000280]

GATWICK AIRPORT SECURITY

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. [Helen Goodman.]

Gisela Stuart: Even though the facts that led to my request for this debate are personal, I am bringing it to the attention of the House as their implications deserve wider attention. Let me begin by outlining those facts.
	On Sunday 3 August, I went through security at Gatwick airport at around 3.30 am. I was going on holiday to Corsica. One suitcase was checked in and I carried one bag on to the plane. The bag I carried with me went through security checks; it was the first shift of the day and it was not very busy when I went through. When I arrived in Corsica, two things happened, which I want to talk about in turn, as the two are separate as well as related.
	First, my suitcase did not arrive in Corsica. Secondly, when I got to the hotel and unpacked my hand luggage, I discovered that in the side pocket of a shopping bag that I had brought with me for use as a beach bag there was a fruit knife. It had been left in the bag some time ago, and I had not spotted it when I was packing. The knife is a small kitchen knife, its total length is 7 in, with a 3 in blade. Let me make it quite clear that I do not habitually walk around carrying knives and I certainly had no idea that this particular knife was in my bag, so I was not conducting a test case to check the security.
	However, first thing on Monday morning, I asked my office manager in Birmingham to get in touch with Gatwick airport to tell it that it had a problem, because the knife surely should have been spotted as the hand luggage was screened. My instincts were that someone had made a mistake and Gatwick security should be made aware of it so that they could put it right. I would have been content to leave it at that but it took a number of phone calls to establish the appropriate person to contact. In the end, my office e-mailed July Spellward and Fiona Carleton at BAA outlining the events. There was no response other than being told that Fiona Carleton, the aviation security manager, would be out of the office until 11 August. So the security manager at Gatwick airport is out of the office for the second week in August!
	On 11 August, my office contacted Gatwick again for a response. We received a response from Wendy Leigh, personal assistant to Andy Flower, who informed us that Andy Flower was away on annual leave but that she would forward our e-mail to the customer service department for it to respond direct, which it did not do.
	When I returned to Gatwick on 17 August two things happened. First, the suitcase that I had lost on the way out and of which I had heard nothing for two weeks mysteriously reappeared and was on the luggage belt. It had returned with me and I just picked it up. Secondly, I went to the BAA information desk where I told my story and asked whether there was anybody I could speak to. I was given the card of July Spellward. At this point I discovered that she is the traveller insight manager. I left my mobile number, as I wanted to pass on some insights, and was assured that she would call me first thing on Monday morning, which she did notnor did she do so at any other time.
	However, on Monday 18 August the commercial director, Mike Luddy, contacted me in a letter to discuss the problems that I had encounteredof course, I thought that BAA had the problems, but he clearly thought that I had them. On 18 August he saidhe was very precise about this:
	I can advise that 317 passengers were processed through North Terminal security between 0315 and 0345 on 3rd August. Three cameras were in operation at the time and if you could provide us with the time you passed through security and perhaps a photograph of yourself to help us with identification, then we may be in a position to take this matter further forward as appropriate.
	So two weeks later, BAA has something from security and is asking for a photograph to look into the matter further. I responded that I found those answers unsatisfactory and put a number of questions to Mr. Luddy. I also had a phone call from Scott Colvin, head of group public affairs, on Thursday 21 August who began by telling me that a letter resolving the open questions had been sent, but later apologised when he realised that the letter he had in mind had nothing to do with my problem.
	I confess that at this point I ran out of patience and contacted  The Mail on Sunday. Curiously, once a journalist got involved and started to ask questions, what had started out as a question of public relations suddenly became a matter of national security, which Mr. Luddy told me prevented him from discussing security standards and individual incidents any further.
	To illustrate why I have absolutely no confidence in anything that BAA told me, I shall quote two statements from the same day. On 22 August, Mr. Luddy told me that
	as we are unable to identify the individual involved we have now taken the decision to take all fourteen members of staff off line for re-training.
	However, I also have an e-mail from him dated the same day in which he says:
	Yes, we have identified the individual and she has not worked a shift at the airport since but as a precaution we have taken the entire crew off shift for re-training.
	In addition, he says that
	the team have not been on duty since the date you travelled.
	In other words, the entire team has not been on duty from 3 August to 22 August.
	On 29 August, Mike Luddy sent an e-mail that in order to close this issue he was telling me that the crew had been retrained and were now back at work, and that new procedures were in place to deal with complaints. I told him that I did not regard it as closed and said that once the House returned from its summer recess I would try to get an Adjournment debate on the subject. I am indeed grateful to have the debate. I am also grateful that my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt), whose constituency covers Gatwick airport, is in the Chamber because I want to reassure her that I am confident that the many people who work hard at Gatwick airport, often for long hours and not good pay, are doing their very best. What is happening is that they are being let down by incompetent management.

Laura Moffatt: I am deeply grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I make no apology either for the incident or for the subsequent events, but I think it right that she gives proper recognition to those people's work. I have spent a lot of time with them, and I know that their work is very difficult. I was very glad to hear her recognise that.
	 It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
	 Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.  [Chris Mole.]

Gisela Stuart: Just as I had entered the phase of thinking that perhaps this was just my problem and I should let it rest, I was surprisedor, more to the point, not surprisedto read in the 19 October edition of  The Sunday Times that
	replica bombs were smuggled past security staff in hand luggage during a safety inspection at Britain's second busiest airport. Staff at Gatwick airport failed to identify artificial explosives carried by undercover transport inspectors from Brussels even though one device was allegedly identified as suspicious by X-ray scanners.
	An interesting interpretation of that incident by  The Sunday Times was that although the staff who check objects through security know that a quality control device sometimes brings up images to check that they spot them, they are under so much pressure to get people through security quickly that they do not have time to concentrate on what they see on the screen.
	As for the incident that I have described, for all I know BAA's management has improved the way in which it deals with complaints, but I am not confident that it has improved the way in which it deals with security.
	I also want to mention the matter of the missing suitcase. We are always told that it is imperative that there should be no piece of luggage on an aeroplane that is not identifiable, and that therefore there should never be any unaccompanied luggage. That leads me to the assumption that, in the interests of security, staff ought to know where suitcases are; but that clearly did not apply to my suitcase. It went AWOL, then reappeared, and when I asked BAA staff where they thought it was, I received no answer.
	The curious aspect of the matter is that air travel is the most prescriptive mode of travel that I can think of. Air travellers must buy named tickets that cannot be transferred. They are told exactly what they can and cannot take on the plane. They are asked to turn up hours in advance. They are not allowed to take any liquids through security, which means that they must leave their can of Coke at one end and purchase a rather expensive can at the other end. People put up with all that because the deal is that it is to do with safety, so the least that we should be able to expect is that those with a duty to impose safety measures take safety seriously.
	The same applies to the issue of suitcases. The problem seems to be not just security, but the fact that BAA deals with one thing whilein this instanceEasyJet deals with another, while a third company tracks the luggage. None of them seem to care much what happens. They assume that tourists need only take out travel insurance. In no other walk of life would it be regarded as acceptable to assume that people insure themselves against the breach of part of a contractual obligation, but in this case it seems to be considered routine that people will lose their luggage. I was without luggage for two weeks, but the maximum that BAA is prepared to provide is three days' compensation at 25 per day against receiptsin other words, a maximum of 75because it is assumed that people have insurance.
	I should like the Minister to do three things. First, I should be very grateful if he could obtain what I failed to obtain: a genuine datelined account of what was done with the security crew. At what point were they taken off duty, and at what point were they retrained? Secondly, I ask the Minister to obtain the European Commission reportwhich I tried to obtain through the website, but which proved not to be availableand, if possible, to share it with me. Thirdly, I ask him to examine the issue of lost luggage. It seems to be dealt with in such a haphazard way that I do not feel confident that security is taken as seriously as it should be.

Jim Fitzpatrick: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) on securing this debate. I am sincerely sorry to learn that her experience of security at Gatwick airport was far from happy. It is also disappointing that she had to go to so much trouble to follow the matter up, and sometimes even had difficulty in finding the right person to deal with.
	Responsibility for each security measure is allocated by law to appropriate parts of the complex aviation industry, and it clearly is a complex system. However, I can assure my hon. Friend that the Department for Transport, as the security regulator for the industry, monitors performance through its inspectors and takes appropriate action where required. I will turn to the specific questions my hon. Friend asked shortly, but I would like to begin with some more general remarks to set the scene.
	We are in a period of sustained severe threat to the UK from terrorist attack. Aviation remains an aspirational terrorist target. A lot of good work is done by the aviation industry to deliver security requirements. At Gatwick, the airport deploys the very latest equipment available for the screening of cabin bags and the passengers themselves. The staff working at airports have a difficult task, and I am sure Members will join me in paying tribute to the hard work they do. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt) raised this matter, and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston, who has had the problems, has generously accepted that staff generally do an excellent job in difficult circumstances. We all appreciate their efforts. I hope that my hon. Friend will understand that I cannot comment now on specific operational matters at particular locations, but what I will do is set out the general context of the UK's aviation security programme with reference to Gatwick airport, and respond to her points later.
	As I have said, the Department for Transport sets the standards for aviation security, but it is up to the airport's own management to decide precisely how it will ensure that these standards are met. Locations differ, and this means that different practical approaches to security need to be taken.
	The other essential aspect of aviation security that I should touch on is what we call the layered approach to security. Public attention on aviation security is often focused on the aspects of security that are most obvious to travellers, such as X-raying of hand luggage and walking through a metal detector, and, of course, these are important aspects of the security picture. Importantly, however, these are only small parts of the security picture. Other aspects such as physical security measures, staff screening, policing, intelligence, travel document security and staff training all contribute to the layered security arrangements at Gatwick and other airports.
	The Department for Transport always investigates any alleged breach of security so that any weaknesses can be addressed. However, we also have to consider the balance between the public's right to be informed of the risksand the mitigating measuresand the need to ensure that terrorists are not fully aware of the preventive measures in place.
	This brings me back to the layered approach to security. None of the parts of the security set-up at any location can, by themselves, deliver 100 per cent. security. As my hon. Friend mentioned, the knife she accidentally took on board an aircraft in her hand luggage when she went on holiday in August was not detected. The fact is that BAA plc made a mistake, and I am not here to make excuses for itand, to be perfectly frank, after listening to the litany of problems my hon. Friend had, I would not know where to start.
	As my hon. Friend says, BAA has written to her on a number of occasions, and, as well as taking steps to retrain the security officers concerned, it has a new procedure in place to respond to complaints of the kind that she made. As I am sure my hon. Friend would expect, this is not the end of the matter. Airport security is not simply about dealing with particular incidents of the kind she mentioned; it is a continuous process of maintaining and improving high standards in a difficult working environment. While we are reliant on the airports themselves to ensure that the necessary measures are implemented on a day-to-day basis, we undertake a regular programme of compliance-monitoring visits, including announced and unannounced inspections, and we provide appropriate advice and guidance to the industry. The inspection of Gatwick airport that was carried out by the European Commission in October, to which my hon. Friend referred, is one part of the programme of work that the Department for Transport and the European Commission have in place for Gatwick and other airports.
	My hon. Friend asked two specific questions about Gatwick. The first was whether I would ask BAA to provide a timeline of when precisely the crew was taken off duty, what kind of retraining they received and when they returned to work. I will certainly do that, and I will let her have a copy of the response I receive from BAA.
	My hon. Friend also asked about reports of the European Commission inspections of UK airports. I assure her that my Department acts on information arising from our joint working with European inspectors. The information that emerges from any inspection is always constructive and is the subject of a great deal of activity by Department for Transport officials and UK airports, as well as by the European Commission. For the reasons that I have stated, I cannot provide further details, but, as I am sure my hon. Friend would expect, where security is concerned we act as soon as is needed.
	Finally, my hon. Friend asked about luggage handling. It is annoying for passengers when luggage is lost or delayed, and it is in the aviation industry's own interests to make sure that that happens less often. Indeed, it happened to me this summer, so I know how frustrating it is. I must say that the airline with which I was flying found the baggage within 24 hours and couriered it back within another 24 hours, so my experience was more reassuring than her own. On the security issues surrounding delayed luggage, I can assure my hon. Friend that as well as there being 100 per cent. hold baggage screening for all bags at UK airports, there are additional, more intensive security measures above and beyond that to deal with luggage that travels separately from its owner, for whatever reason.
	In conclusion, I think we all accept that heightened aviation security measures will be with us for some time. I am sure that we also all agree that they do not make the travelling experience any more pleasant, and that it is worrying when things do not go as they shouldmy hon. Friend experienced that. I thank her for bringing this matter to our attention, congratulate her again on securing this debate and assure her that the commitments I have made this evening, both in general and to her in particular, will be fulfilled.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at eleven  minutes past Ten o'clock.